Shooting people | Pascal Molliere

Is R Kelly guilty?

? Or is he just another victim of a multi-billion dollar media industry that uses sex as it’s main ingredient to generate more revenue, money and power.?

There is no doubt that sex sells

Story by Pascal Molliere;

There is no doubt that sex sells, above all else. Sex is the biggest most lucrative subject on planet Earth when it comes to sales, and in spite of political correctness or the horrors of some of the worst cases we hear about, the problem becomes an oversaturated and numbing issue that we can tend to take for granted these days, as more and more stories emerge about people in positions of power and influence.

The very people who were also used to generate similar headlines when they were selling music videos, records or downloads, or real-estate or films and tv shows. Sex scandals today are ten-a-penny, just another mass-shooting, or terror attack, right? Much in the same way as mass-shootings, or suicide bombings have become so frequently reported, sexual assaults and sexual misconduct are beginning to reveal another truth in all of these ‘headlines’.

That the media industry is worth an eye-watering $22 trillion annually. And that’s not taking into account the industries that place these well-known icons into their respective positions in the first place.  The movie industry ? Add another $500bn, just in one year, and that’s just the US film industry.

Globally, the film industry is worth a whopping $16trillion a year.

Real-estate? Fashion? Sport? We can only begin to imagine the revenues and values of such  behemoths, and other massive global machines, where once these well-known names first made their marks. They’re all open-season it seems to an industry that sits quietly in the side-lines, pumping out misery and negativity. Profiteering from scandals and stories, selling ‘news’ of people’s sorrows and pain. Making more pain, and selling it back to us.

I’m talking about NEWS.

When we begin to examine how the news industry feeds off all other industry, making money out of manipulating us all, and getting away with it - for centuries, we can start to really deconstruct the myths and start to piece together the real scandal. News - what is it? Do we trust it? Can we trust it? What happens when bad news hits us personally? Do we like it when someone hears our bad news? Don’t we want to shy away from those not so easy subjects we want to keep to ourselves?

In an age where ‘openness and transparency’ are banded around like commandments in the bible, should we not start to take a closer look at an industry that continues to make trillions of dollars on the backs of all our pain? Can we not imagine the pain and sorrow of having all our worst fears exposed for all to see, and ask ourselves who benefits from knowing such bad news? Why does it even matter? Can’t we simply get on with living peaceful, happy lives with one another in harmony?

Effectively, this is the fundamental driver of what bad news is.

Taking what are fundamental parts of humanity and exposing them. Taking someone’s sensitive information and telling everybody else about it. It’s almost like a racket. An industry that exposes people’s sensitive information, but it has become so out of control, so easily spread via the internet, that sometimes a story can spread faster than we can even think.

But if we don’t start to regulate and control the news industry, we are in danger of losing our minds. We, the people are born with an innate sense of instinctive mechanisms. Fundamental, natural defences that are designed to save our lives. Human reflexes and natural reactions that protect us against things we don’t really know about or realise when we are born.

We blink when anything threatens or comes close to our eyes. We put our arms out naturally if we fall, and we are born with instincts that stop us from hurting ourselves. But as we develop, and as we grow, we become conditioned, manipulated and directed. From schooling, to tv, to newspapers, images and advertising. So much so that the more we learn, the louder some messages have to be to cut through the relentless bombardment of information that fights for our attention.

News and media find that they have to compete for ever decreasing attention spans, and since the internet, we have now become creatures where if a message isn’t delivered in split second timing, we simply click away to another page.

The average time now spent on a web page is less than 2 seconds.

But that’s ok, because it’s there forever. We can always click back, or look it up some other time. Right?

But it’s the headlines that tend to stick. And in an age of split second attention spans, these ‘sound-bites’ of garbled yet piercing stories tend to change opinions so rapidly, it’s almost like the volatile and changing values of bitcoin when confidence leaves the markets. Nowadays, all it takes is just a few words to send the markets reeling into a nose-dive panic sell situation, where billions of dollars are wiped from the value of a stock on the say-so of Alan Greenspan or Warren Buffet.

There is no doubt that news is a fundamental aspect of our industrial world, but now in an age of such fierce competition for such shorter and shorter attention, are we not at risk of an industry taking control of our entire worlds with manipulated and distorted stories that simply are used to shift vast amounts of wealth from one part of a bank to another? Of course there are some very horrific and terrifying things that happen in the spectrum of human behaviour. Death and destruction, war and famine, drought and starvation.

For More Information:- Pascal Molliere

Pascal Molliere expresses his love of Gourdes, in Provence, France.

There are some incredible parts of the world to visit, but one of my favourites has to be the beautiful village of Gordes, in Provence, France.

When you arrive there, it takes your breath away with its beauty and charm. It’s almost like going to Paris and seeing the Eiffel Tour, it is the iconic Provencal village. It’s best to look at Gordes from a distance to fully appreciate its beauty.

Once you’re in the village, your perspective is completely different, and you can’t fully appreciate the full beauty of it’s overall shape and ambiance.

Exploring the nooks and crannies and hidden secrets of this picturesque hill top town will enchant you. Cobblestone streets, a majestic 16th century chateau and mellow, yellow stoned houses make this the town the poster boy for Provence. Don’t just take it from me, Gordes is a Plus Beaux Villlage, officially one of the most beautiful villages in Provence.

For More Information:- PascalMolliere

Pascale Molliere | Brexit Swindle from start to end

The Great Brexit Swindle ~ with the U.K. caught between a rock and a hard place, are we just in danger of becoming another of the United States?. ~ By Pascal Molliere

Who is really leading the U.K. out of Europe?

“A soft Brexit blueprint would “kill” Britain’s chances, said Donald Trump.

The story was that David Cameron was ‘honouring his pledge’ to the British people when he announced that there will be a referendum on whether the U.K. electorate wanted to stay in the European Union, or whether they wanted to leave ‘and take control of our borders and trading decisions’.

At least that was the spin.Frankly, can anyone recall there being any sort of ‘uprising’ or debate about the people demanding to leave Europe?

Yes there were news stories, scare stories of this and that, people being offered a chance to vote on such a thing, in fact, if this was really something that the British people were so desperate about, then would it not have been debated and discussed over years prior? Perhaps there would have been discussions in parliament? Or in the House of Lords, or even on tv on Question Time?

Maybe if Britain and the British people were really so desperate to leave the awful grip of the ‘unelected bureaucrats’ we’d have seen marches, protests, demonstrations.. Surely? Or great debates during Newsnight programs or even a huge rally in London with people shouting ‘we want out!’ perhaps with a few riots, arrests and all the rest of it.. right?

But there was none of that.

Or maybe, if this was something that the Great British electorate was so passionate about, we might have at least been aware of it being such a huge bone of contention for so long, but are we? Were we? Honestly?

Nope

The answer is a resounding ‘no!’ we never were particularly vocal or demonstrative about anything to do with leaving Europe, until it was said by David Cameron that we were to hold a referendum. Suddenly, the machines began to spring into action. It was only then, that we began to hear the stories, the migrants, the NHS bills and the costs of staying in Europe.

People like ‘rent-a-gob’ Nigel Farrage popped onto the scene, spouting hate speach about immigration, taking back control of our borders (didn’t we always have passport / customs / immigration anyway?) and suddenly we were bombarded with news stories, articles and an endless stream of scaremongering nonsense that suggested we were all suffering because of the number of immigrants coming into the U.K.

How odd, one might think that they’re so desperate to leave the comforts of their own family life, in Syria, or Iraq - unless something terrible had happened there.. Oh, hang on, it had - when Britain bombed the living daylights out of their homes and family life.

Did anybody also notice the horror stories about immigrants marching through Europe, with Facebook videos circulating showing armies of refugees trampling across boarder fences and stampeding their way to British soil. The scare movies that circulated through the social media channels showing armies of immigrants, Eastern European’s, Muslims and others beating a path to get to England.

And then there was Cambridge Analytica, and the scandal of how social media was used to manipulate opinion and to spread biased information which was far from truthful.  And as we approach the deadline date,  The US president told reporters the withdrawal agreement "sounds like a great deal for the EU" and meant the UK might not be able to trade with the US.No 10 insisted it is "very clear" the UK would be able to sign trade deals with countries around the world. Downing Street added that Mrs May is ready to defend her deal in a TV debate with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

It has been reported the debate could take place on 9 December - two days before the Parliamentary vote on Mrs May's deal. Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Mr Trump said: "Right now if you look at the deal, [the UK] may not be able to trade with us. And that wouldn't be a good thing. I don't think they meant that."

Remember the ‘referendum’? The period of mad propaganda showing Farrage ranting and shouting about immigrants, NHS and Britain taking back control of its borders? One of the most prominent claims made by the Leave campaign was that the UK would take back £350m a week once it had left the EU – with the sum going to the NHS. The UK Statistics Authority has since said this was a “clear misuse of official statistics” – most notably because the figure did not take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU after paying into the budget.  After taking into account the rebate, the figure is believed to be closer to £250m but the question remains whether the money will actually go the NHS.

On the day after the Brexit referendum result, Nigel Farage, who had been more closely associated with the Leave.EU campaign than Vote Leave, disowned the pledge saying it was “one of the mistakes” that had been made by those wanting us out of the bloc.

A poll by Ipsos MORI published in June 2016 found that nearly half the British public believed the claim. Two years on and Theresa May has now pledged additional funding for the NHS and has said the extra money will come, in part, from a “Brexit dividend”. Under the plans, the NHS budget will increase by £20.5bn by 2023, and the government has said this will be funded through a combination of tax rises, economic growth and money no longer sent to Brussels.

The Office For Budget Responsibility (OBR) has however said that although there would be some savings if Britain leaves the EU, this does not take into account the potential economic impact or the money that could have to be sent to the EU as a result of the Brexit deal. 

2:- A free-trade deal with the EU will be 'the easiest thing in human history'

One year after the referendum Liam Foxsaid a post-Brexit free trade deal with the EU would be the “easiest in human history”. “The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history,” he told BBC radio.

“We are already beginning with zero tariffs, and we are already beginning at the point of maximal regulatory equivalence, as it is called. In other words, our rules and our laws are exactly the same.”However, the negotiations have been far from easy and, with the clock ticking, the prospect of a no-deal Brexit appears increasingly likely.  Mr Fox himself has now said that leaving without a deal would be better than prolonging talks with Brussels, a move he described as a "complete betrayal" of voters.

He said any attempt to extend the Article 50 process was unacceptable amid speculation that Ms May could be forced to lengthen the negotiations to prevent Britain crashing out without a deal. David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, made similar claims during the referendum campaign and said that Britain would negotiate individual trade deals with other EU countries. However, EU member states cannot negotiate individual trade deals with outside countries and instead do so as a bloc of 28.

“Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said in May.“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3bn of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1bn fashion exports. Poland its £3bn manufacturing exports.”

3:-  ‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’

Alan Johnson, a Remainer and the former shadow chancellor, claimed two thirds of manufacturing jobs were dependent on Europe after looking at outdated analysis that had been conducted by the Centre of Economics and Business Research (CEBR). The figure used by Mr Johnson compared the total number of manufacturing jobs, 2.55 million, with the 1.7 million jobs the CEBR had said were dependent on EU trade.

However, the two figures were not comparable and more recent analysis shows that the figure is more likely to be closer to 15 per cent.

4:-  'Turkey is going to join the EU and millions of people will flock to the UK'

Though Turkey has been an official EU candidate state since 1999, talks have long stalled and there is no prospect of the country joining the bloc anytime soon.The European Parliament voted in favour of suspending negotiations with Turkey just months after the Brexitreferendum, on the basis of human rights abuses and the European Council has said it will not open talks in any new areas. During the campaign Michael Goveclaimed that Turkey and four other countries could join the EU and claimed it was possible this could happen within four years.

For More Information:- Pascal Molliere

Pascal Molliére | Family Courts ~ what is it

According to Wikipedia, “In the context of human society, a family is a group if people related either by consanguinity (by recognized birth), affinity (by marriage or other relationship), or co-residence (as implied by the etymology of the English word "family") or some combination of these”.Pascal Molliére

But what does ‘Family’ mean in real terms, and what happens when family’s, children, mums and dads and brothers and sisters are separated. In these more modern times, we are all pushed to extremes, with a capitalist driven society that seems to see now end to infinite economic growth. Profit on return, return on investment, rising house prices, hedge funds, business, property, investments, GDP, wages ~ we all expect growth.Pascal Molliére

All of these so commonly and so accepted constructs of our ‘society’ expects and demands this growth, yet growth can be a hollow and meaningless ideal, and growth as a concept in terms of money and finances creates greed and growth is blind to its counterpart, loss.To understand how the problem of growth, can be the major driving force that causes the breakup of families and togetherness, and a fundamental element of humanity, then we need to realise that humanity is the victim of this thing we call money.

You simply cannot continue to have infinate growth, with finite resources, and you cannot continue to drive growth in any of the above without damaging some of the core fundamental, ancient cultures of humanity ~ the most critical and most sacred, being the Family Unit. As we all take for granted the endless pressure from tv  programs and magazine articles pulling our focus constantly towards property, and the growth we can make on our ‘investments’ renovating, decorating and reinvesting in property, houses apartments and grand designs, fixing up homes, buying at auction, making profit and gain.

Building and creating and feeding the desire to want more and more, to have better and better, and to compete almost with those who have better.‘Very nice’, we all think - to have colour-changing LED’s built-in to the plinths, or the welsh slate split tiles in the bathroom, and to have the latest in surround-sound in the spare en-suite. Behind these programs, are sponsors. Behind the sponsors are banks, and behind the banks are the people who drive and contort the destiny of humanity.Such is the ‘programming’ and intensity of focus centred on growth,  we tend to forget there is a more human side to the way our world operates, and the changes which have come about by the push for growth have happened slowly, over the last few generations.

Even children now speak of owning and running their own company, or earning lots of money, and being wealthy. But what is the long-term effect of less and less family time, or worse still, if that family unit suffers or is under threat. The digital world is now evolving fast than we could ever have imagined, and with so much growth, there is demand, and with so much demand, there always seems to be less and less time for family. Nowadays, whilst the cost of property pauses for breath, the next wave of ‘growth’ is not too far away.

But can we really keep up? Not content with the traditional ‘nuclear’ family, where these so traditional ‘stereo-typical’ models of father taking the train to work, while mum stays home to care for the children, we find ourselves working overtime, taking part-time work, with both partners having to work all-hours just to keep up with mortgage repayments. Intimate growth? There are limits, and at the root of it all, is a planet and a population mindset that is well and truly entrenched into the blind faith that there will always be growth.

We cannot continue to have infinite growth on a planet with finite resources, and the most precious resource of all, are people. Without them, perhaps the natural world would be a better place, but for who left to enjoy it? With such pressures on our modern-day ‘family unit’ it’s no wonder then that some relationships feel the strain. Most relationships struggle with pressures at some point. And all relationships where children are concerned require sets of skills and management that many of us struggle to find, at times when money is the primary focus. With both parents having to work all hours just to pay the bank, it’s the children who suffer. Add into this, the problems of trust, love, romance, closeness, comfort and space to enjoy what the world has to offer, and invariably the family unit comes under threat.

The last thing this fragile and delicate unit needs, is more fear, more doubt and the threat of break-up. What fragile trust there may have been once, is trumped by fundamental rules of preservation when the threat of fragile trust is tested. One of the primary functions of the family involves providing a framework for the production and reproduction of persons biologically and socially.   Yet if the basic family unit cannot overcome some of the fundamental basics of function, through fear of not succeeding, or trying to navigate the infinite obstacles of trust and love, then who are there to intervene?

The family courts.

It’s hard to imagine, that when two parents find things a little difficult, and they need some help, that the only route available is through a court system.  We all know why family courts are shielded from media or public scrutiny. But that lack of transparency can often lead to abuse of power. Judges in family courts can withhold information not just for the good of the individuals concerned, but also to conceal their own verdict. As such, family courts can be sinister places where cruel decisions are made. An obviously unfair decision will not necessarily generate a public outcry, because often the public cannot know. Louise Tickle, an experienced family court reporter, recently described how hard it can be to write about what goes on at a hearing, even when it becomes clear that mistakes have been made or the outcome is unjust.

If journalists are allowed in to regular court, the judge can usually decide what they can or cannot report. ‘Because of reporting restrictions on saying what really happens in family courts — pretty much the only place where poor social work practice visibly plays out — it has been impossible to explain the many failures in all their shocking detail,’ she said.

Social work in the family court is largely carried out by CAFCASS.

So called ‘trained’ officers, often with a back-ground in social work, are deployed to gather information on behalf of the family court judge, either during a trial or as part of an application made by one parent or another. ‘Application’? Already this has a ring of utter madness about it, but this is a word which is a fundamental part of the family courts. Making an application to ask a judge to see your children.

For More Information:- Pascal Molliére

Pascal Molliere | Parental Alienation

Parental alienation is perhaps the most dangerous phenomenon of our generation. Cuts made to legal aid in the family court has led to an increasing number of alienated father’s and children who are repeatedly manipulated by the alienating parent, and also by a state sponsored, corrupt system that tends to promote separation above all else.

The process of Parental Alienation begins usually when a relationship between the parents of a child becomes contentious and begins to break down.

The resulting fear (usually of the mother) tends to end in the father being forced out of the lives of the children. The more the father fight’s for contact, the more hostile the mother becomes. The more that Family Courts apply their system of arbitration, the worse things become. Invariably, the system pits both parents against one another, which ultimately ends in a mush worse situation for all, worst of all, the child. The cycle goes on, and on, usually the result, is that the only winner is the family lawyer. The child is used as a pawn, and is subject to severe psychological manipulation of the child, who can often learn the irrational fears of the mother.

The Child teds to show unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent and/or other family members.

It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence, however the UK Family Courts are invariably biased towards the mother, which often supports the mother’s irrationality and implacable hostility. Resulting in negative and destructive manipulation towards both the child and the rejected family members.

These typically occur almost exclusively in association with relationship break-down, family separation or divorce, particularly where legal action is involved.

It undermines core principles of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

For More Information:- Pascal Molliere

Brexit Beef Cancer Risks – Pascal Molliere

Brexit Beef Photo by Pascal Molliere

Pascal Molliere - If the UK finally does leave the EU, the risk of much lower food standards will be sacrificed in trade agreements with non-EU states such as the USA.Hormone-treated beef, which is permitted in the US, but not in the EU, raises very serious concerns. The EU currently refuses to import food which it considers unsafe anda threat to human health. The World Trade Organisation has accepted the EU’s refusal to import hormone-reared beef.

While the EU has the power, united strength and resources to refuse such trade with the World’s largest economy, and to enforce its decision to reject hormone-treated beef, there is no doubt that the UK, acting alone, would have any such strength or leverage to refuse USA trade power.

The report shows that at least one of the hormones routinely used in US beef production, is currently banned under EU law. It has been judged to be a significant cancer risk by the EU.

There are five other hormones used in the US (which are not used in the UK or the EU)and no evidence exists that demonstrates that their use is acceptably safe.
The UK Government could ensure that our food safety standards remain aligned with prevailing EU rules, or raise them even higher, however the report warns of the risks and the choices this case, and others like it, pose for the UK.

Trade agreements with powerful countries such as the USA will be a matter of fact, if the UK crashes out of the EU and thus loses the protection it currently enjoys. 

Brexit Beef Photo by Pascal Molliere

Despite the rhetoric of free trade, the UK could easily become a ‘rule taker’ rather than a ‘rule maker’, in which case the UK must decide whose rules it will take: those of the EU (where it will no longer have a say in the development of standards), the USA or the WTO.

The report recommends that:

• After Brexit, the UK Government should ensure either that food standards remain fully aligned with EU standards, or that we adopt higher standards. Food standards should not be weakened, especially not sacrificed to facilitate trade in undesirable and/or unsafe products.
• The UK consumer movement should strongly resist moves to weaken current levels of consumer protection as part of future trade deals.
• UK food and farming industries should publicly commit themselves to producing and selling only beef from cattle never treated with synthetic hormones.
• The retail industry (supermarket chains, independent stores and butchers) should advise their members, customers and MPs to tell the UK Government that they will not sell synthetic hormone-reared beef.
• The UK Government should explicitly acknowledge that any weakening of UK food standards, such as permitting the sale of hormone-reared beef, will result in barriers to UK food companies wishing to export their products to the EU’s Single Market.
• UK NGOs, researchers and public health professionals should maintain a vigilant watch on hormones policy and practice in the UK and EU, and other countries with which the UK trades, taking particular note of new scientific or policy signals emerging from official bodies and the ‘national competent authorities.

Photography and Article by - Pascal Molliere