File-sharers are big spenders too

People who download music illegally also spend an average of £77 a year buying it legitimately, a survey has found. Those who claimed not to use peer-to-peer filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay spent a yearly average of just £44. Almost one in 10 of those questioned aged between 16 and 50 said they downloaded music illegally. However, eight out of 10 of that group also bought CDs, vinyl and as MP3s. A total of 1008 people in the UK took part in the online poll commissioned by researchers Demos. Half the group (50%) accessed music officially via YouTube, and 22% listened to internet radio. Napster, once a pioneer of music filesharing, was used by just 4%, with 21% saying they had not heard of it. Music streaming service Spotify was used by 9% of the group, most of whom had not signed up for the paid-for premium service. However, it was rated highly for being easy to use, convenient and providing access to a wide variety of music. Right price 75% of 16-24 year olds said they were prepared to pay for MP3s. The optimum price for the survey group as a whole was 45 pence for an individual track, with just 2% saying they would pay more than £1. Current chart topper Fight for this Love by Cheryl Cole is priced at 99 pence on iTunes in the UK, and 79 pence on Amazon. "Politicians and music companies need to recognise that the nature of music consumption has changed and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access to music," said Demos researcher Peter Bradwell. It also raises questions about the draft Digital Economy bill, which is due to be submitted to parliament later this month and proposes disconnecting file-sharers who repeatedly break the law. "The scale of unlawful file-sharing poses a real threat to the long-term sustainability of our creative industries," said a spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. "While surveys asking people about unlawful behaviour should be treated with caution, it's encouraging that the findings signal that the three-pronged approach set out by the Government this week - a mix of education, enforcement and attractive new commercial deals - provides the best way forward for industry and consumers." -(my view)- File-Sharing should NO.....i repeat NOT be illegal.....people buy the media and DECIDE to be kid to others and share it..........there's NO crime being committed,for only crime here is YOU"the big fat companies" who want more money from the stuff we buy.....YES BUY! all of the stuff i download.....guess what?......98% of every thing i download......I BUY.....and OTHERS BUY to.....it does NOT affect sales in shop and YOUR NOT losing money..it HAS been PROVEN time again,this is just one good report.......i bought a sofa from Argos........does that mean my friends can't sit on it and if they do...they are to give the manufacturer money.......fuck that!!! you guys can go fuck off right now you pathetic morons!

Baby RB surgery 'not an option'

"Doctors want to take the boy off the ventilator that is keeping him alive" A one-year-old boy at the centre of a "right-to-life" legal dispute would not benefit from an operation to help him breathe, the High Court has been told. The child, known as Baby RB, has a rare, genetic condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. But a leading paediatrician, known as Dr F, said he was "not a candidate" for surgery to try to open up his airway. Baby RB's father is fighting a hospital's attempt - backed by the mother - to withdraw his life support. The father's lawyers argue that the boy's brain is unaffected and that he can see, hear, interact and play. But Dr F, as he is known for legal reasons, told the court Baby RB was living a "burdensome existence". 'On a knife edge' Baby RB suffers from congenital myasthenic syndrome and has been in hospital since birth. His father believes he might be taken off his ventilator and returned home if surgeons carried out a tracheotomy, which creates an opening in the neck to deliver air to the lungs. His doctor has agreed to carry out a tracheotomy assessment on Saturday and report back to the court next week. But on Tuesday, Dr F, who is a paediatric intensive care consultant, agreed with the boy's hospital and his mother that his quality of life was so low that it would not be in his best interests to try to save him. He told Mr Justice McFarlane that Baby RB was living "on a knife edge" and could suffer even greater distress if a tracheotomy was performed and some sort of blockage or infection developed. He said the boy had no brain-stem function, which was needed to survive independently, and feared he may be suffering but unable to show it. "He is severely limited in his ability to reach any sort of potential," the doctor said, pointing out that his disabilities would become more and more marked as he grew older. "My heartfelt feeling is that his existence is impoverished," he added. 'Pitiful existence' For legal reasons, none of the parties in the court case can be identified. Both parents, who are in their 20s and are said to be "amicably separated", have been present at the hearings. The mother agrees with the hospital's lawyers who say her son will lead a "miserable, sad and pitiful existence", even if surgery allows him to be returned home. Instead, they say they are seeking permission to withdraw fundamental life support "to allow him a peaceful, calm and dignified death". The hearing will resume on Wednesday.-(my view)-What the fuck.......its NOT a matter of cure or treatment for this kid that the docs refuse to operate,its a matter of dosh-money-dough......it all boils down to them saving some fucking money....they do NOT care for life....to them...they do NOT see a human life,all they see is a job(if its to hard-fuck it..I'm not doing it) ...YOU HEARTLESS FUCKERS!

Kelly Told"You Need Bigger Buns"

Posters promoting Kelly Brook's new play had to be changed because buns covering her cleavage were deemed too small, it has emerged. The 29-year-old actress is set to join the cast of West End production Calendar Girls this week. Adverts for the play, used on London Underground, featured Kelly using cherry-topped buns to preserve her modesty, but a spokeswoman for the production said the first version of the posters had to be changed so they left more to the imagination. She said: "Producer David Pugh wanted to use it as the poster image in the underground stations. London Underground said that it was indecent and he would need to re-do the photos with bigger buns." Kelly will replace Jerry Hall in the role of Celia in the play, which tells the story of Women's Institute members who decide to bare all for a charity calendar. A Transport for London spokesman said: "We worked with the advertiser to ensure that the advert complied with our policy. We will be carrying an amended version of the advert on the Tube network."-(my view)- Your freakin kidding me? her tits are 100% natural...."the buns are to smell" for crying out loud............so you see her cleavage...big deal,we can see the shit that's coming from the bosses(of the company) mouth but you don't see us bitching.......get your head out your asses!

M.J's Home Movies

Tonight,Sky 1(VM-121)19:00/7pm FUCK NO....WATCHING A PEDO AT HOME BEING IN HOME MOVIES, FUCK THAT,I AM NOT FUCKING WATCHING.....YOUR A NIGGA OR WHITE TRASH...MAKE UP YOUR MIND BEFORE YOU GO ON CAM! EWWWWWWWW!THE PEDO NEVER WENT TO PRISON...GUESS MONEY CAN BUY COPS OFF OF SERIOUS CRIMES TO:also on tv :M.J the live saonce....he's in hell fucking young boys....he can't hear you!

Spotlight on disability hate crime

It has been suggested the case of Fiona Pilkington, who killed herself and her 18-year-old disabled daughter Francecca after being hounded by local youths, could mark a turning point in society's reaction to disability hate crime. The Guardian newspaper asks if this is a "Stephen Lawrence moment" - referring to how the murder of the London teenager in 1993 precipitated a root-and-branch review of the police's response to racial attacks. And where the Lawrence investigation coined the term "institutional racism" some disability rights campaigners now talk of "institutional disablism" - which, according to the charity Scope, "creates the conditions where disability hate crime can flourish". 'Horrifying incidents' But - appalling though the Pilkington case is - it is by no means exceptional, being only the latest in a number of truly horrific incidents. When I investigated disability hate crime for the BBC last year, I looked in detail at three of the worst cases. In 2007, Christine Lakinski, a woman in her 50s with learning and physical disabilities, was taunted, urinated upon and sprayed with shaving foam as she lay dying in the street. Her brother told me that because of disabilities, she had been picked on for most of her life. The police could find no evidence to pursue the case as a hate crime against a disabled person. The same year, Brent Martin, a young man with learning disabilities, was kicked and beaten to death by a gang on the estate where he lived in north-east England. The senior investigating officer in the case told me that this was a crime committed against a vulnerable person. But it, too, was not investigated as a hate crime. In her home in the Forest of Dean, Elizabeth James told me about her son, Kevin Davies, who had been preyed upon by three people, confined to a shed and systematically tortured until he died in 2006. Again, specific provisions in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act - which allow for harsher sentences when a crime is motivated by hatred based upon a person's disability - were not used. 'Lacklustre response' In January of this year, three young men were jailed for gang-raping a 16 year-old girl with learning disabilities. The filmed their attack on mobile phones. In order to destroy any forensic evidence, she was doused with caustic soda which left her in a coma and permanently disfigured. Those sentences are now under review to decide if they were unduly lenient. Disability rights campaigners say such cases amount to a collective refusal by the authorities to name these offences for what they really are - crimes of hatred motivated by a loathing of someone because of a disability or perceived difference. Home Secretary Alan Johnson has criticised the lacklustre response by police and local councils to Fiona Pilkington's repeated calls for help. But it will take some time for his assertion - that consistent standards be applied across the UK - to trickle down to every police station in the land. It will also take time for prosecutors to insist upon using section 146 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act so that crimes like these - crimes that it seems contributed to driving a woman to burn herself and her daughter to death - are identified as hate crimes in open court. When I went to see the then director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, I half expected hand-wringing and platitudes. The man I encountered was contrite and determined to do something before his term of office came to an end. Indeed, just three months after our conversation, he addressed the issue in a speech to the Bar Council of England and Wales. He said the problem was widespread and urged police and prosecutors to make sure that sentences reflected the seriousness of the crime. He described these offences as "a scar on the conscience of criminal justice". Crucially, Sir Ken said that it was not always necessary for hostility to be expressed in clear language. "Each apparently minor incident of name-calling and harassment on the street may seem relatively unimportant but, taken together, a pattern of hostility could be traced." Sir Ken concluded by telling his audience: "It is our duty to give effect to the law which supports the struggle for disabled people to live as full and valued members of society - these offences represent a crude assault on their human rights." All of these cases shock all but the most uncivilised elements in society. But already there seems to be an insistence upon tackling anti-social behaviour. Once again, disability hate crime does not seem to be the focus for public and official outrage. -my view)-This is the must spiteful,disgraceful and HAVE-NO-EXCUSE to use or otherwise do either in comedy shows or other,racism and others are ok(as racism"should be not of colour but of actions of that person/s is/has done/doing at that time" ie: the word"NIGGER/NIGGA"to me is NOT about colour of skin...but the loud mouths,crimes and the way they act around people,alcoholics,drug users,gays,smokers,religious people-ect.....bring this on themselves and CAN help their actions but REFUSE to and that my friends CAN be made fun or used(in shows)of,DISABLED people should NOT be made fun of but if you do......you should go to jail....and should be given a 3 strikes and your out method ie: the 3rd time means your not going to stop and should go to jail without parole.......FOR LIFE! this crime should be treated like pedophilia cases!THIS SHOULD NOT BE EXCUSED BECAUSE YOU ARE A POLICEMAN/WOMAN......THE SAME LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED TO YOU TO!