Britannia Radio

READ THE NEWS ON ONE CLICK
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk

Julian Assange:
Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year 2010

WikiLeaks Editor-In-Chief Julian Assange has won the most votes in this year's
Person of the Year poll with 382,020 votes, giving him an easy first place.
He is ovewhelmingly the Readers' first choice.
The TIME Editors will reveal their decision on the TODAY show, Wednesday morning on NBC

**********************************************

Scroll down the website to read much more news on One Click or go to the News Archives

1. Update: WikiLeaks / Julian Assange Internet Wars London Show Trial

This afternoon Julian Assange was granted £240,000 bail by a UK court. Refusing to accept the umpire's decision to release Assange, Sweden's prosecutors have appealed. Assange will now remain in solitary confinement in the basement of Wandsworth Prison for the forseeable future until an appeal date has been agreed in the UK High Court. All this for a 'crime' that UK law does not even recognise and for charges that have never been legally produced. On One Click we sincerely hope that the Swedish government's behaviour over this ridiculous show trial will adversely affect their tourist industry and income to an enormous degree for the forseeable future. The message is clear: Justice Banana Republic Sweden is an unsafe country for visitors with their laws the equivalent of a faulty IKEA flat pack. Insofar as we are aware, the Julian Assange / WikiLeaks case is the first British extradition case ever live-tweeted from court. For a running commenta ry of what went down in court this afternoon, see @One Click Group Twitter
Information Release, The One Click Group

2. Readers Vote Julian Assange As TIME's Person Of The Year 2010

Julian Assange, the man behind WikiLeaks, has won the most votes in this year's Person of the Year poll. Julian Assange raked in 382,020 votes, giving him an easy first place.Will Assange be named Person of the Year? The editors of TIME will unveil their choice on the TODAY show, Wednesday morning on NBC.
Megan Friedman, TIMES Magazine

3. WikiLeaks, The Law And You

Information is the antidote to fear. Will I break the law if I host or mirror the US diplomatic cables that have been published by Wikileaks? If I view or download them? If I write a news story based on them? These are just a few of the questions we've been getting here at EFF, particularly in light of many US companies' apparent fear to do any business with Wikileaks (with a few notable exceptions). We unfortunately don't have the capacity to offer individualized legal advice to everyone who contacts us. What we can do, however, is talk about EFF's own policy position: we agree with other legal commentators who have warned that a prosecution of Assange, much less of other readers or publishers of the cables, would face serious First Amendment hurdles (, ) and would be "extremely dangerous" to free speech rights. Along with our friends at the ACLU, "We're deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a goo d idea." Even better than commentary, we can also provide legal information on this complicated issue, and today we have for you some high quality legal information from an expert and objective source: Congress' own research service, CRS. Meanwhile, we will continue our effort to oppose online censorship and provide additional news and commentary on the ongoing WikiLeaks saga, which is shaping up to be the first great free speech battle of the 21st century.
Kevin Bankston, Electronic Frontier Foundation

4. WikiLeaks Merchandising - Beware!

A number of 'WikiLeaks merchandisers' have crept up of late. Some of these entrepreneurs have contacted Rixstep, asking for permission to use the WikiLeaks logo to make t-shirts, coffee mugs, and so forth. Rixstep are not in any way affiliated with WikiLeaks. But more: administrators of WikiLeaks have no knowledge of any donations accruing through these merchandisers, despite the merchandisers' claims to the contrary, and have not been contacted by any of these merchandisers beforehand (or at all) to ask permission to engage in such commerce. It's quite shameful of those who callously attempt to use the current crisis for their own personal profit. You contribute to WikiLeaks by donating directly to WikiLeaks - and not by sending money to unapproved third parties. Particularly in these trying times. One Click Note: We second the comments make by Rixstep. Donate direct to WikiLeaks. Do not get commerce sucked.
Information Release, Rixstep

5. Senate Passes Bill That Destroys Existing Whistleblower Rights - Take Action Now!

The Senate passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (S. 372) on Friday, December, 10th, by unanimous consent. As the National Whistleblowers Center has repeatedly stated S. 372 is a bad deal for whistleblowers. There are two poison pills in the bill that fundamentally undermine the small advances in the bill. There is still time to fix the bill. or the first time ever, federal employees will not be protected for blowing the whistle on a violation of law. The excuse given to justify this dangerous rollback is that it only excludes minor violations of law. The fact is there is no such thing as a minor violation of law. Either it is violation of the law or it is not. Federal managers should not be allowed to decide what laws they can violate. The second major rollback in the Senate bill is the increased power given to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Instead of reforming the broken MSPB, for the first time in history the Senate has give n the Board the ability to summarily dismiss a whistleblowers case without ever having a hearing. The House resisted efforts in 1978 to give the MSPB this tremendous authority and should continue to do so today. These two dangerous rollbacks in existing whistleblower protections can be fixed in the House and sent back to the Senate. We cannot allow another generation of whistleblowers to suffer. Urge the House to continue to stand up for real whistleblower protections and fix the Senate bill before passing it. TAKE ACTION! Stop the repeal of existing whistleblower rights.
Information Release, National Whistleblower Center USA

6. Use of Vioxx May Have Caused Patients Everlasting Harm

Merck's withdrawn painkiller Vioxx may have continued to cause blood clots and perhaps deaths even after patients dropped it, U.S. researchers said Monday. The drug was recalled by Merck in 2004 after a colon-polyp prevention study showed it increased the risk of heart disease and death in users. Over the five years it was on the market, researchers estimate it caused nearly 40,000 deaths. The new findings, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, are based on data made available by Merck during multibillion-dollar litigation against the company.They show patients taking Vioxx (also called rofecoxib) doubled their chances of having blood clots or dying in the first half-year after discontinuing treatment, confirming earlier results that hinted the effects might last up to one year.What happens after that is still an open question, said Dr. Joseph Ross of the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, who worked on the study.
Reuters

7. Weak Laws & Lenient Enforcement Allow Dangerous Missouri Doctors To Harm Unchecked

Patients in Missouri face a double whammy of the state's faulty oversight of dangerous doctors -- Missouri law limits the state medical board's authority to disciple them, and the board doesn't fully exercise the rights it does have. These are latest findings in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's series looking at the lack of information available to patients about the doctors and hospitals that treat them."Leniency and secrecy are the rule when it comes to policing Missouri's 22,000 doctors," the paper wrote. The state's Board of Registration for the Healing Arts makes public little information on doctors . The board doesn't release information on its own warning letters, on malpractice cases, on restrictions by hospitals or even where a doctor went to medical school. It seldom researches cases that challenge the quality of care, and it never uses its power to immediately suspend doctors, the paper found. State laws also hamper the board's oversight. It's hard to discipline a doctor for one negligent incident, and unlike in most states, Missouri law does not give the board absolute authority over discipline. Instead, it must reach a settlement with a doctor or bring the case before commission in a litigious process that can drag on for years. Meanwhile, doctors continue to practice. Because the process is so long, the board often settles, the paper said.
Karen Weise, Pro Publica

READ THE NEWS ON ONE CLICK
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk