Yesterday (2/4/13) a Court in Los Angeles began hearing a civil action brought by Katherine Jackson against concert promoters AEG over the 2009 death of her son the late Micheal Jackson. The USD40 million claim argues that by employing Doctor Conrad Murray who has since been convicted of the involuntary manslaughter of Micheal Jackson AEG are responsible for Micheal Jackson''s death.
The main problem that Katherine Jackson has in bringing this case (and the Court has in hearing it) is that there is no evidence (such as a contract of employment) that AEG ever employed Dr Murray. Instead Ms Jackson claims to have is a long list of emails between Micheal Jackson, Conrad Murray and various AEG executives. These emails will no doubt be highly salacious and full of details that could be confused as references to Rihanna, Chris Brown, Rihanna's tour promoters Live Nation, myself or possibly even my doctor. Ms Jackson also claims to have a contract of employment between Micheal Jackson and Dr Murray that was draw up by AEG lawyers and evidence that AEG was paying Dr Murray's salary. That last point is particularly irrelevant because it is standard practise in the entertainment industry that an artist will be given an advance by a record company or tour promoter that they can spend how they wish. However it will be the record company or in this case tour promoter who ultimately signs the cheques. This is something that is quite clearly covered by the contract between Micheal Jackson and AEG.
By allowing this argument to even be presented to a jury the Judge - Yvette Palazuleos - is opening the door for a precedent to be set that will have wide reaching implications all forms of contract law (including things like marriage) in the state of California. For example if the contract drawn up by AEG lawyers between Mr Jackson and Dr Murray is held to be a contract between AEG themselves and Dr Murray does that then mean that if I instruct my lawyer to draw up say a tenancy agreement for a friend of mine as a favour does that make me liable for any breaches of that tenancy agreement by either party? This will have particularly wide-ranging implications within the California entertainment industry where standard practise for say a record company to instruct their lawyers to help one of their artists draw up a contract with a tour promoter or (using the Rihanna example) a retail clothing company. Regardless of the outcome of this argument the mere fact it is going on is going to cause lots of people in California lots of headaches.
If by some miracle Ms Jackson manages to leap the giant legal hurdle of the absence of a contract of employment and has the contract between Mr Jackson and Dr Murray ruled a de facto contract between AEG and Dr Murray the next problem she faces is that Mr Jackson employed Dr Murray in 2005. The relationship between Mr Jackson and AEG only began in around 2008 and the contract between Mr Jackson and Dr Murray drawn up by AEG lawyers wasn't signed until 2009 - just days before Mr Jackson's death. So rather than showing AEG to be recklessly employing Dr Murray the contract drawn up by their lawyers actually seems to show AEG exceeding their duty of care to Micheal Jackson (an adult man) by trying to regulate his relationship with a doctor known for questionable practise.
The feeds into the wider discussion about the efforts to contain the threat presented by Micheal Jackson to himself and others.While Mr Jackson may still have some highly deluded fans the fact that he was a prolific and dangerous paedophile is not in dispute. Prior to his death almost everybody working in the media and entertainment industry had either heard credible stories from children (predominately boys aged under 10) Mr Jackson had sexually abused or seen photographs or video of Mr Jackson either behaving highly inappropriately with or out and out sexually abusing young children. However as with the Jimmy Savile case in the UK Mr Jackson's power and wealth prevented these stories being made public. Since his death and the end of his protection from defamation many of those children (now adults) have started to publicly tell their stories. Laws preventing the distribution of child pornography still prevent many of the photographs and videos being seen publicly.
For reasons that are yet to be explained the prosecutors at either his 1993 or 2005 trials for child sex abuse failed to enter any of these witness statements, photographs or videos into evidence and Mr Jackson was wrongfully acquitted on both occasions. However the 2005 trial was the final straw and from then on anybody who had any dealings with Mr Jackson did everything in their power to make sure he had no contact with any more children including unsupervised contact with his own children. This was the real reason behind Mr Jackson's 2006 financial problems and the forced closure of his Neverland Ranch. This is also the reason why AEG simply would not allow Mr Jackson direct access to any money he made through his business dealings with them.
This act of a community pulling together in order to protect itself from a threat after the Courts and law enforcement agencies failed to do so is highly relevant to the Rihanna/Chris Brown case. After all the argument the US is trying to present is that there is no need for the Courts to take action against Brown because the community will regulate the threat he poses. Again this is going to be a very short argument because the test is quite simple. If Chris Brown is in a relationship with Rihanna or arguably any other woman the threat he presents is not being successfully regulated. Also being democratic society the US has decided that the wider community shall be protected from dangerous individuals such Mr Jackson or Mr Brown through laws passed by elected politicians and enforced by independent Courts. As such US citizens are forced by law to pay taxes in order to pay for both those politicians and Courts. Therefore it is not the communities responsibility to individually regulate the threat presented by Chris Brown. It is the responsibility of the Court that will hear his case on Friday (5/4/13). We will wait to see what happens.
Although it has absolutely no legal basis the community containment of Mr Jackson does raise some interesting moral questions about the actions of Dr Murray. After all it is clear that Mr Jackson only got heavily into drugs once he was prevented from sexually abusing children. As it is also clear that Mr Jackson was wilfully requesting and taking the drugs Dr Murray provided the question is; were Dr Murray's actions wrong because it could be argued he was simply helping Mr Jackson permanently eliminate the threat Mr Jackson posed to society? This has a relevance to the wider debate about the death penalty that is never far away in US politics. That's because while I firmly believe that the justice system should be wholly focused on rehabilitation rather than vengeance I appreciate that there are those - primarily sex offenders - who simply cannot be rehabilitated. Therefore as a society is better that we try and contain the threat presented by those individuals by keeping them locked up in prisons where they can still harm others or do we simply eliminate that threat by killing them.
Finally any discussion about Micheal Jackson, his paedophilic behaviour and the attempts to regulate that paedophilic behaviour prompts a discussion about what caused him to become a paedophile in the first place. From a psychological perspective even this isn't that interesting because it's well known that along with his brothers as a child Micheal Jackson was himself horrifically physically and psychologically abused by his father Joe Jackson assisted by his mother Katherine Jackson. This abuse clearly did severe damage to Micheal Jackson which manifested itself as paedophilia possibly in an attempt to regain a lost youth.
So if Katherine Jackson believes that AEG has vicarious liability for the actions of Dr Murray then surely she also believes she has vicarious liability for the actions of her son Micheal. As such rather then seeing Katherine Jackson trying to gain USD40million from AEG it would be much more interesting to see a Court case in which Katherine Jackson is tried for the abuse suffered by those sexually abused by Micheal Jackson.
15:15 on 3/4/13.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Tuesday, 2 April 2013
Gun Control, Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights.
Last Monday (25/3/13) the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) took up two cases relating to the issue of same-sex or gay marriage. While I may have commented on the wider metaphorical implications of this hearing I may have forgotten to comment on the actual, fundamental issues relating to these cases. So while I may have missed the headlines allow me to catch up now;
The first case in front of SOCTUS was the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). Although I was about 14 when DOMA was passed and have neither the time nor inclination to read the whole thing Wikipedia informs me that the two problematic sections of the act which are being considered by SOCTUS are Section 2 and Section 3. Section 2 simply removes any obligation on any state to recognise a same-sex relationship while Section 3 goes further forcing the federal government to only recognise partners of opposite gender as a legal spouse in any and all acts or statute.
This prevents same sex couples for accessing legal protections in a whole host of areas including inheritance, transfer of property, duty of care and probably most importantly access to financial benefits such as pensions or health-care. This is clearly a violation of the 14th amendment which grants all people the right to equal protection under the law. Therefore DOMA should be struck down and frankly I'm confused as to why it was signed in the first place.
The second case in front of SCOTUS is that of California's Proposition 8. This was a ballot initiative that was passed by California voters that amend the Californian Bill of Rights to include a Section (7.5) requiring California to only recognise a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It has absolutely no impact on the legal rights of those in same sex relationships. Therefore I think this was something that was simply made up by some smart-arsed Californian to test whether the term "marriage" is a legal one or a religious one. As proposition 8 has no bearing on whether the use of the term "marriage" has any legal implication the 1st amendment which protects the freedom of religion means that SCOTUS had no grounds to even take up the issue of Proposition 8. Therefore Proposition 8 should be upheld and SCOTUS should write a letter of apology.
The other major issue that has been important in US politics recently is that of gun control which appropriately enough I found discussing with my mother's. Well my DWP mother had just got in from work so was eating her dinner quietly. My biological mother however argued that she couldn't understand why US citizens thought that they had the right to bear arms. So I quickly countered using the example of Iraq to demonstrate that while a lightly armed population could not stop an invasion force it can certainly cause an occupation force a f*ck load of problems. Possibly being a little drunk I then went on to explain how a lightly armed population prevented the US Federal government from forcing through anti-segregation and other legislation that granted black Americans civil rights in the 1960's.
It was at this point my mother pointed out that it's effectiveness in denying black Americans civil rights was possibly the worst argument in favour in gun ownership in the history of arguments. However I quickly countered by pointing out that because the US Federal government was prevented from imposing civil rights legislation on a lightly armed population it was instead forced to wait until a majority of Americans came to understand that regardless of race people were fundamentally equal. To my mind that is a stronger and longer lasting victory.
I'm pretty sure there is a lesson in there somewhere for the US' current gay rights mob. After all it may be the 1st amendment that prevents Congress from passing a law abridging the freedom of religion. However it is mere reality that prevents it passing a law that says everybody must be your friend.
23:55 on 2/4/13.
The first case in front of SOCTUS was the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). Although I was about 14 when DOMA was passed and have neither the time nor inclination to read the whole thing Wikipedia informs me that the two problematic sections of the act which are being considered by SOCTUS are Section 2 and Section 3. Section 2 simply removes any obligation on any state to recognise a same-sex relationship while Section 3 goes further forcing the federal government to only recognise partners of opposite gender as a legal spouse in any and all acts or statute.
This prevents same sex couples for accessing legal protections in a whole host of areas including inheritance, transfer of property, duty of care and probably most importantly access to financial benefits such as pensions or health-care. This is clearly a violation of the 14th amendment which grants all people the right to equal protection under the law. Therefore DOMA should be struck down and frankly I'm confused as to why it was signed in the first place.
The second case in front of SCOTUS is that of California's Proposition 8. This was a ballot initiative that was passed by California voters that amend the Californian Bill of Rights to include a Section (7.5) requiring California to only recognise a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It has absolutely no impact on the legal rights of those in same sex relationships. Therefore I think this was something that was simply made up by some smart-arsed Californian to test whether the term "marriage" is a legal one or a religious one. As proposition 8 has no bearing on whether the use of the term "marriage" has any legal implication the 1st amendment which protects the freedom of religion means that SCOTUS had no grounds to even take up the issue of Proposition 8. Therefore Proposition 8 should be upheld and SCOTUS should write a letter of apology.
The other major issue that has been important in US politics recently is that of gun control which appropriately enough I found discussing with my mother's. Well my DWP mother had just got in from work so was eating her dinner quietly. My biological mother however argued that she couldn't understand why US citizens thought that they had the right to bear arms. So I quickly countered using the example of Iraq to demonstrate that while a lightly armed population could not stop an invasion force it can certainly cause an occupation force a f*ck load of problems. Possibly being a little drunk I then went on to explain how a lightly armed population prevented the US Federal government from forcing through anti-segregation and other legislation that granted black Americans civil rights in the 1960's.
It was at this point my mother pointed out that it's effectiveness in denying black Americans civil rights was possibly the worst argument in favour in gun ownership in the history of arguments. However I quickly countered by pointing out that because the US Federal government was prevented from imposing civil rights legislation on a lightly armed population it was instead forced to wait until a majority of Americans came to understand that regardless of race people were fundamentally equal. To my mind that is a stronger and longer lasting victory.
I'm pretty sure there is a lesson in there somewhere for the US' current gay rights mob. After all it may be the 1st amendment that prevents Congress from passing a law abridging the freedom of religion. However it is mere reality that prevents it passing a law that says everybody must be your friend.
23:55 on 2/4/13.
Operation Misery: Week 4, Day 4.
Since my last properly titled post on Rihanna's concert performances Rihanna has gone on to perform three more concerts in Edmonton (27/3/13), Calgary (30/3/13) and Vancouver (1/4/13). As you may have detected from my Twitter feed (@Sovereignaka) the tour promoters are still refusing to provide me (and by the sounds of it others) with the information needed to tell you how these concerts went. As these three most recent concerts have all taken place in the western, developed nation of Canada I have had no shortage of unofficial sources providing me with information.
However as I've said before in political terms the concerts themselves are probably the least important part of the tour merely providing an excuse for all the other things that are going on. Therefore if I fail to review a concert or am not on Twitter screaming for official comment on a rumour than it's safe to assume the concert passed without major incident.
That said Rihanna's Edmonton concert was - by all accounts - very poor. It appears that the only thing that Rihanna did right was to arrive on stage at her unofficial start-time of 22:00. She then seemed distracted and disinterested as she boredly worked her way through the motions of her standard set (Act 2&3 - Jump & Man Down were flipped) and standard costume changes with her backing track and backing singers doing most of the work. The kindest review I can find online compared Rihanna's performance to "This Is Spinal Tap" a spoof documentary about rockstar excess and conceit gone too far.
I think though that Rihanna's fans should be able to forgive her the poor performance in Edmonton because she was hardly allowed the best preparation for the concert. On Monday (25/3/13) there was of course the drama of Rihanna's tour caravan being impounded at the US/Canada border threatening the cancellation of the Winnipeg concert. On Tuesday (26/3/13) Rihanna had the stress of travelling from Winnipeg to Edmonton while her case against Berdon LLP was being heard in Barbados and that bikini picture was released. On the journey Rihanna also made the mistake of trying to get cheeky with me on Twitter which once again rapidly led to her being put back in her place. On Wednesday (27/3/13) events forced me to further rub in that point by explaining the connection between the Dionne Warwick bankruptcy and Rihanna's Berdon LLP while pointing out that Britain's official reaction to that bikini picture was hardly complimentary. Having being forced to put up with this stream of very public and highly personal insults it was hardly a surprise that Rihanna was at the top of her game that evening.
Rihanna's preparation for the Calgary concert should have been equally miserable. After driving through the day and night Rihanna arrived in Calgary on Friday (29/3/13) a full day and a half before her next concert. The idea here was to cause her stress by suddenly lifting the pressure of the concert, travel, concert structure and instead leaving her with time to kill in a strange city in a foreign country. Fortunately I'd already published my Morocco preview so she at least had something to read. While Rihanna was twiddling her thumbs we were all supposed to be speculating about whether or not Chris Brown would travel up to visit Rihanna and how this would affect Rihanna's relationship with Melissa Forde.
To make matters worse the UK channel 4Music which is a division of the government funded Channel4 and like BBC Radio1 has a habit of trading on my reputation decided to give Rihanna some award or other. Due to the time difference the award - which was announced late in the evening UK time - was designed to force Rihanna onto Twitter to give a sort of acceptance speech. The intention was to disrupt Rihanna's sleep pattern and trigger a Twitter discussion with me at a time when I'm not traditionally at my most coherent. Therefore Rihanna's hashtag laden response was a swipe at 4Music not Beyonce. Of course as it turned out by that point Rihanna and I were already in the middle of a Twitter exchange that I quite enjoyed. Mainly because I'd been making extensive use of my herbal grinder shaped like a Canadian dollar coin known as a 'Loonie.'
Later in the day Rihanna went shopping in a Calgary branch of Footlooker which is an international sports/fashion retail chain. I think primarily this was just something to do. However I suppose it could be interpreted as Rihanna reminding me that if I needed to by new trainers I could always go to the Croydon branch of Footlooker. That interpretation though sort of suggests that Rihanna doesn't quite understand that although Footlocker is an international chain different stores stock different products. That isn't a good look for someone whose got their own retail fashion line. So it seems some of the other customers decided to have a little bit of fun at Rihanna's expense by placing a baby's stroller/pram by the tills as she was paying for whatever it was she'd purchased. This produced a photograph that played on all those Rihanna pregnancy rumours and gave us a possible glance of a Rihanna future. Or perhaps it was just a suggestion of what Rihanna might like to use to transport Chris Brown around should they continue their relationship.
Later in the evening Rihanna posted and then quickly deleted some downright explicit photographs of female strippers she was watching while partying in a Calgary strip club. I think this was a drunk Rihanna referencing my habit of looking at and occasionally sharing pornography on a Friday night. Although my memory of most Friday nights is somewhat hazy on that particular night I may have watched something quite similar to what Rihanna posted. That suggests that Rihanna gets more access to my viewing than I choose to share. Obviously the fact that Rihanna and presumably Melissa Forde were watching female strippers may have raised all those old questions about their sexuality and the exact nature of their relationship. However as Rihanna is a stage performer who uses sexuality as part of her act it's clear she has something of a professional affinity with strippers - some of whom are much more talented then you would assume. Also I think it's fair to say that a strip club is one of the few places on earth Rihanna isn't going to be the centre of attention.
Whatever you think about how Rihanna spent her Friday night it clearly worked because her Saturday (30/3/13) concert Calgary was much, much stronger than her Edmonton concert. The main complaint was that Rihanna took to the stage some 100 minutes late at around 22:40. This is a full 40 minutes later than Rihanna's usual level of lateness. This along with the explicit nature of support act A$AP Rocky's set prompted a lot of complaints from parents who'd either allowed or taken their children to the concert. Many of these were forced to leave before Rihanna had even taken to the stage and are now seeking refunds. If they don't get them it's unlikely they'll be back. There seems to have been an element of not wanting to be seen to rise in Calgary before Easter Sunday about Rihanna's lateness. However the Qataris have already blamed it on Rihanna's alcohol and marijuana use in the hope that many Muslims simply wouldn't get the Easter Calvary/Calgary reference. There seems to be a hint of truth in Qatar's assessment though because Rihanna seemed subdued, distracted and lethargic during the Intro and Act 1 sections. However she had perked up dramatically during the second act (Acts 2&3 were again flipped in what seems to be becoming the standard) and performed a storming concert that was well received by all who stayed until the end. Due to the physical nature of Rihanna's stage performance along with the fact her voice has not yet fully recovered the backing singers and backing track had to do most of the work. However it is clear that things are improving so it looks like the people at the European leg are going to be getting the best of it.
Following the Calgary concert Rihanna attended the sort of compulsory, work related after-party at Calgary's Ten X club before driving off to Vancouver. Before arriving in Vancouver Rihanna stopped off for supplies at a local branch of Wal-mart. Prompting the circulation of lots of pictures and speculation about exactly what supplies Rihanna was buying this will henceforth be known as 'The Wal-mart incident' as it led to collisions with plate glass windows in California US and in Australia. I wrote about this more fully at the time in a post that can be read here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/on-climate-change-front.html Basically though it re-ignited the argument about the level of official information being provided about the tour. After all how difficult would it be for Live Nation to simply post each set-list on http://www.Setlist.fm
This argument about the flow of official information is a long running and complicated one. On one hand Rihanna's CIA handlers don't want any official information provided at all because they want to try and force people to find out their own information while causing confusion through rumour and speculation. Rihanna obviously wants to go along with the handlers because they're threatening her with things like the loss of her US work permit, the loss of her Berdon LLP case and the possible prosecution of her and her mother for tax evasion. However there are other people in Rihanna's close social circle - Melissa Forde springs to mind- who understand that by not providing this information Rihanna is making herself an enemy of some very violent people with long memories whilst making it incredibly difficult for people like me to do their jobs. Therefore this is clearly an issue that is creating some tension within Rihanna's core social group.
So I should point out that while things like Tweets always help and as the trip from Saint Paul's to Winnipeg demonstrates international border crossings are something I need to know about almost as they happen the flow of information is not primarily the responsibility of either Rihanna or members of her core social group. That's because things like liaising with local media and producing and distributing a video montage of each concert is something that can only be done by the promoter Live Nation. I don't know the exact nature of Rihanna's relationship with Live Nation but I doubt she's in a position to start giving orders although it might be worth having the discussion.
Although it seems innocuous Rihanna's trip to Wal-mart was considered important because it touches on an intensely private matter that sadly is going to be a recurring issue throughout Rihanna's tour - especially the US legs. Ever since that rumour went out just before the second US Presidential debate about Chris Brown getting Rihanna pregnant there has been a lot of international interest in Rihanna's menstrual cycle. After all that is usually one of the key indicators of whether a woman is pregnant or not. Therefore there was a lot of speculation about whether Rihanna had stopped off to buy tampons or sanitary towels. There was also speculation that Rihanna may have stopped off to buy condoms because through the Tulsa HIV dentist story her CIA handlers have been speculating that Rihanna is infected with some sexually transmitted disease such as HIV or Hepatitis. As Rihanna hasn't had any form of physical contact with Chris Brown in at least the last month I'll agree this might sound odd. However there have been some pretty wild rumours doing the rounds about what has been going on aboard Rihanna's tour bus. The most widely circulated of these is that Rihanna is now having regular sex with her support act A$AP Rocky. Also if you're foolish enough to listen to British sources you would know that rather than travelling from Edmonton to Calgary Rihanna instead spent Thursday (28/3/13) getting gang-banged by at least two unidentified men although in some versions of the story they were apparently queueing around the block. However I suspect this is the first Rihanna has heard about that. The US and France have already received Brazil's response to this because frankly after Haiti they should at least contribute something to the Olympic preparation effort.
Obviously you would expect all this pressure and public speculation about her sexual and reproductive health would have been enough to put Rihanna off her Vancouver show. However just to make sure the Canadians decided to take the opportunity to break that news that two Canadian Jihadists took part in the In Amenas hostage taking in Morocco's neighbour Algeria. This obviously allows Canada to open a bridge of dialogue with Algeria ahead of Rihanna's Morocco concert and highlights Canada's recent role as a major exporter of Islamic terrorism as it relates to Canada's close alliance with the UK as part of the Commonwealth Realm. The Canadians also tried to provoke a discussion about Rihanna's role in riot- particularly as part of the Arab Spring - with a story of Vancouver police officers caught on tape assaulting an Arab man who'd jumped a red traffic light on a bicycle.
None of this mattered though because it seems Rihanna's Vancouver show was one of her best yet. She actually arrived on stage 5 mins early at around 21:55. She then worked her way through her standard set list and costume changes (Acts 2&3 were I think again flipped) seeming happy, enthusiastic and full of energy.
Rihanna will now travel on through the US/Canada border for her next concert in Seattle (3/4/13). Meanwhile 'Hell Week' is picking up pace ahead of Chris Brown's Friday (5/4/13) Court appearance. So far Lindsey Lohan has falsely claimed to be pregnant and the Micheal Jackson wrongful death suit is just about to get underway in Los Angles. The first issue before the Court is how much access to information about the trial the public are going to be allowed.
17:55 on 2/4/13.
However as I've said before in political terms the concerts themselves are probably the least important part of the tour merely providing an excuse for all the other things that are going on. Therefore if I fail to review a concert or am not on Twitter screaming for official comment on a rumour than it's safe to assume the concert passed without major incident.
That said Rihanna's Edmonton concert was - by all accounts - very poor. It appears that the only thing that Rihanna did right was to arrive on stage at her unofficial start-time of 22:00. She then seemed distracted and disinterested as she boredly worked her way through the motions of her standard set (Act 2&3 - Jump & Man Down were flipped) and standard costume changes with her backing track and backing singers doing most of the work. The kindest review I can find online compared Rihanna's performance to "This Is Spinal Tap" a spoof documentary about rockstar excess and conceit gone too far.
I think though that Rihanna's fans should be able to forgive her the poor performance in Edmonton because she was hardly allowed the best preparation for the concert. On Monday (25/3/13) there was of course the drama of Rihanna's tour caravan being impounded at the US/Canada border threatening the cancellation of the Winnipeg concert. On Tuesday (26/3/13) Rihanna had the stress of travelling from Winnipeg to Edmonton while her case against Berdon LLP was being heard in Barbados and that bikini picture was released. On the journey Rihanna also made the mistake of trying to get cheeky with me on Twitter which once again rapidly led to her being put back in her place. On Wednesday (27/3/13) events forced me to further rub in that point by explaining the connection between the Dionne Warwick bankruptcy and Rihanna's Berdon LLP while pointing out that Britain's official reaction to that bikini picture was hardly complimentary. Having being forced to put up with this stream of very public and highly personal insults it was hardly a surprise that Rihanna was at the top of her game that evening.
Rihanna's preparation for the Calgary concert should have been equally miserable. After driving through the day and night Rihanna arrived in Calgary on Friday (29/3/13) a full day and a half before her next concert. The idea here was to cause her stress by suddenly lifting the pressure of the concert, travel, concert structure and instead leaving her with time to kill in a strange city in a foreign country. Fortunately I'd already published my Morocco preview so she at least had something to read. While Rihanna was twiddling her thumbs we were all supposed to be speculating about whether or not Chris Brown would travel up to visit Rihanna and how this would affect Rihanna's relationship with Melissa Forde.
To make matters worse the UK channel 4Music which is a division of the government funded Channel4 and like BBC Radio1 has a habit of trading on my reputation decided to give Rihanna some award or other. Due to the time difference the award - which was announced late in the evening UK time - was designed to force Rihanna onto Twitter to give a sort of acceptance speech. The intention was to disrupt Rihanna's sleep pattern and trigger a Twitter discussion with me at a time when I'm not traditionally at my most coherent. Therefore Rihanna's hashtag laden response was a swipe at 4Music not Beyonce. Of course as it turned out by that point Rihanna and I were already in the middle of a Twitter exchange that I quite enjoyed. Mainly because I'd been making extensive use of my herbal grinder shaped like a Canadian dollar coin known as a 'Loonie.'
Later in the day Rihanna went shopping in a Calgary branch of Footlooker which is an international sports/fashion retail chain. I think primarily this was just something to do. However I suppose it could be interpreted as Rihanna reminding me that if I needed to by new trainers I could always go to the Croydon branch of Footlooker. That interpretation though sort of suggests that Rihanna doesn't quite understand that although Footlocker is an international chain different stores stock different products. That isn't a good look for someone whose got their own retail fashion line. So it seems some of the other customers decided to have a little bit of fun at Rihanna's expense by placing a baby's stroller/pram by the tills as she was paying for whatever it was she'd purchased. This produced a photograph that played on all those Rihanna pregnancy rumours and gave us a possible glance of a Rihanna future. Or perhaps it was just a suggestion of what Rihanna might like to use to transport Chris Brown around should they continue their relationship.
Later in the evening Rihanna posted and then quickly deleted some downright explicit photographs of female strippers she was watching while partying in a Calgary strip club. I think this was a drunk Rihanna referencing my habit of looking at and occasionally sharing pornography on a Friday night. Although my memory of most Friday nights is somewhat hazy on that particular night I may have watched something quite similar to what Rihanna posted. That suggests that Rihanna gets more access to my viewing than I choose to share. Obviously the fact that Rihanna and presumably Melissa Forde were watching female strippers may have raised all those old questions about their sexuality and the exact nature of their relationship. However as Rihanna is a stage performer who uses sexuality as part of her act it's clear she has something of a professional affinity with strippers - some of whom are much more talented then you would assume. Also I think it's fair to say that a strip club is one of the few places on earth Rihanna isn't going to be the centre of attention.
Whatever you think about how Rihanna spent her Friday night it clearly worked because her Saturday (30/3/13) concert Calgary was much, much stronger than her Edmonton concert. The main complaint was that Rihanna took to the stage some 100 minutes late at around 22:40. This is a full 40 minutes later than Rihanna's usual level of lateness. This along with the explicit nature of support act A$AP Rocky's set prompted a lot of complaints from parents who'd either allowed or taken their children to the concert. Many of these were forced to leave before Rihanna had even taken to the stage and are now seeking refunds. If they don't get them it's unlikely they'll be back. There seems to have been an element of not wanting to be seen to rise in Calgary before Easter Sunday about Rihanna's lateness. However the Qataris have already blamed it on Rihanna's alcohol and marijuana use in the hope that many Muslims simply wouldn't get the Easter Calvary/Calgary reference. There seems to be a hint of truth in Qatar's assessment though because Rihanna seemed subdued, distracted and lethargic during the Intro and Act 1 sections. However she had perked up dramatically during the second act (Acts 2&3 were again flipped in what seems to be becoming the standard) and performed a storming concert that was well received by all who stayed until the end. Due to the physical nature of Rihanna's stage performance along with the fact her voice has not yet fully recovered the backing singers and backing track had to do most of the work. However it is clear that things are improving so it looks like the people at the European leg are going to be getting the best of it.
Following the Calgary concert Rihanna attended the sort of compulsory, work related after-party at Calgary's Ten X club before driving off to Vancouver. Before arriving in Vancouver Rihanna stopped off for supplies at a local branch of Wal-mart. Prompting the circulation of lots of pictures and speculation about exactly what supplies Rihanna was buying this will henceforth be known as 'The Wal-mart incident' as it led to collisions with plate glass windows in California US and in Australia. I wrote about this more fully at the time in a post that can be read here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/on-climate-change-front.html Basically though it re-ignited the argument about the level of official information being provided about the tour. After all how difficult would it be for Live Nation to simply post each set-list on http://www.Setlist.fm
This argument about the flow of official information is a long running and complicated one. On one hand Rihanna's CIA handlers don't want any official information provided at all because they want to try and force people to find out their own information while causing confusion through rumour and speculation. Rihanna obviously wants to go along with the handlers because they're threatening her with things like the loss of her US work permit, the loss of her Berdon LLP case and the possible prosecution of her and her mother for tax evasion. However there are other people in Rihanna's close social circle - Melissa Forde springs to mind- who understand that by not providing this information Rihanna is making herself an enemy of some very violent people with long memories whilst making it incredibly difficult for people like me to do their jobs. Therefore this is clearly an issue that is creating some tension within Rihanna's core social group.
So I should point out that while things like Tweets always help and as the trip from Saint Paul's to Winnipeg demonstrates international border crossings are something I need to know about almost as they happen the flow of information is not primarily the responsibility of either Rihanna or members of her core social group. That's because things like liaising with local media and producing and distributing a video montage of each concert is something that can only be done by the promoter Live Nation. I don't know the exact nature of Rihanna's relationship with Live Nation but I doubt she's in a position to start giving orders although it might be worth having the discussion.
Although it seems innocuous Rihanna's trip to Wal-mart was considered important because it touches on an intensely private matter that sadly is going to be a recurring issue throughout Rihanna's tour - especially the US legs. Ever since that rumour went out just before the second US Presidential debate about Chris Brown getting Rihanna pregnant there has been a lot of international interest in Rihanna's menstrual cycle. After all that is usually one of the key indicators of whether a woman is pregnant or not. Therefore there was a lot of speculation about whether Rihanna had stopped off to buy tampons or sanitary towels. There was also speculation that Rihanna may have stopped off to buy condoms because through the Tulsa HIV dentist story her CIA handlers have been speculating that Rihanna is infected with some sexually transmitted disease such as HIV or Hepatitis. As Rihanna hasn't had any form of physical contact with Chris Brown in at least the last month I'll agree this might sound odd. However there have been some pretty wild rumours doing the rounds about what has been going on aboard Rihanna's tour bus. The most widely circulated of these is that Rihanna is now having regular sex with her support act A$AP Rocky. Also if you're foolish enough to listen to British sources you would know that rather than travelling from Edmonton to Calgary Rihanna instead spent Thursday (28/3/13) getting gang-banged by at least two unidentified men although in some versions of the story they were apparently queueing around the block. However I suspect this is the first Rihanna has heard about that. The US and France have already received Brazil's response to this because frankly after Haiti they should at least contribute something to the Olympic preparation effort.
Obviously you would expect all this pressure and public speculation about her sexual and reproductive health would have been enough to put Rihanna off her Vancouver show. However just to make sure the Canadians decided to take the opportunity to break that news that two Canadian Jihadists took part in the In Amenas hostage taking in Morocco's neighbour Algeria. This obviously allows Canada to open a bridge of dialogue with Algeria ahead of Rihanna's Morocco concert and highlights Canada's recent role as a major exporter of Islamic terrorism as it relates to Canada's close alliance with the UK as part of the Commonwealth Realm. The Canadians also tried to provoke a discussion about Rihanna's role in riot- particularly as part of the Arab Spring - with a story of Vancouver police officers caught on tape assaulting an Arab man who'd jumped a red traffic light on a bicycle.
None of this mattered though because it seems Rihanna's Vancouver show was one of her best yet. She actually arrived on stage 5 mins early at around 21:55. She then worked her way through her standard set list and costume changes (Acts 2&3 were I think again flipped) seeming happy, enthusiastic and full of energy.
Rihanna will now travel on through the US/Canada border for her next concert in Seattle (3/4/13). Meanwhile 'Hell Week' is picking up pace ahead of Chris Brown's Friday (5/4/13) Court appearance. So far Lindsey Lohan has falsely claimed to be pregnant and the Micheal Jackson wrongful death suit is just about to get underway in Los Angles. The first issue before the Court is how much access to information about the trial the public are going to be allowed.
17:55 on 2/4/13.
United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Passed.
In the last few minutes the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has passed The Arms Trade Treaty by a margin of 154 votes in favour, 3 against with 24 abstentions. I'm still trying to track down a list of how each nation voted and which 13 nations of the UNGA simply didn't bother turn up. However I suspect the three votes against were from Iran, Syria and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) who blocked the treaty a committee stage forcing the UNGA vote.
All this UNGA vote means is that nations are now free to chose whether or not to sign up to the treaty. It is worth noting that the US did vote in favour but most certainly won't be signing up to the treaty as it - especially the provisions covering small-arms and ammunition - seem inconsistent with the second amendment to the US Constitution. However small nations - especially those in Africa - who voted in favour of the treaty will now come under heavy pressure to sign up to and implement the treaty.
Those who happily break international arms treaties will of course continue to happily break this treaty.
16:10 on 2/4/13.
All this UNGA vote means is that nations are now free to chose whether or not to sign up to the treaty. It is worth noting that the US did vote in favour but most certainly won't be signing up to the treaty as it - especially the provisions covering small-arms and ammunition - seem inconsistent with the second amendment to the US Constitution. However small nations - especially those in Africa - who voted in favour of the treaty will now come under heavy pressure to sign up to and implement the treaty.
Those who happily break international arms treaties will of course continue to happily break this treaty.
16:10 on 2/4/13.
All Three Convicted in Phillpot Fire Case.
In the last few minutes a UK Court has convicted Micheal "Mick" Phillpot, Mairead Phillpot and their neighbour Paul Mosely of the manslaughter of 6 of the Phillpot children in a house fire in Derby in May 2012.
However this is quite clearly the UK not fully apologising for the al-Houla massacre in Syria. That's because manslaughter is considered a lesser charge than murder and is broadly defined as accidentally causing death through an intentional act that was not intended to kill (setting the fire in this case). The more serious charge of murder was not even pursued and the manslaughter convictions were reached by a majority Jury decision of 10 votes in favour and 2 against. Therefore it's quite clear the Crown Prosecution Service weren't even making an effort in this case.
All three are scheduled to be sentenced tomorrow (3/4/13). Fortunately the Court can't just give them a lot of money as a rewards.
15:40 on 2/4/13.
However this is quite clearly the UK not fully apologising for the al-Houla massacre in Syria. That's because manslaughter is considered a lesser charge than murder and is broadly defined as accidentally causing death through an intentional act that was not intended to kill (setting the fire in this case). The more serious charge of murder was not even pursued and the manslaughter convictions were reached by a majority Jury decision of 10 votes in favour and 2 against. Therefore it's quite clear the Crown Prosecution Service weren't even making an effort in this case.
All three are scheduled to be sentenced tomorrow (3/4/13). Fortunately the Court can't just give them a lot of money as a rewards.
15:40 on 2/4/13.
Monday, 1 April 2013
Death Penalty Sought in Aurora Shooting Case.
In the last few minutes it has been announced that George Brauchler a prosecutor in the trial of the man accused of carrying out a mass shooting in a cinema in Aurora, Colorado during a screening of Batman: Dark Knight Rises on July 20th 2012 (20/7/12) will seek the death penalty after consulting with survivors and relatives of the victims. This move prevents the suspect from entering a guilty plea that he had previously indicated he would be willing to do in order to shorten the trial.
To complicate matters further it appears that Brauchler has been removed from the case and replaced by Carlos A. Samour, Jr by Judge William Sylvester who cited concerns about the length of time the trial was taking. Therefore it's seems Brauchler's decision to seek the death penalty will have - at best - limited impact on the outcome of the case.
Obviously the trial of the Aurora suspect has implications for the current debate about gun control that is going on in the US and the debate about the death penalty that is always in the background of US politics. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting in trial debates about whether he would be able to mount an insanity defence there were attempts to compare the suspect to me. However in that immediate aftermath I attempted to explain the suspects ego driven actions by referencing an obscure Volcanoes song called "Look at Me Now." It turns Chris Brown also once recorded a song called "Look at Me Now. Therefore in recent developments in the case there seems to have been significant attempts to create confusion about whether the suspect is a metaphor for me or a metaphor for Chris Brown.
However in today's developments the case most certainly seems to be a metaphor for Chris Brown. The question it's attempting to pose is whether the Judge at Brown's Friday (5/4/13) Court appearance should give into popular opinion and 'kill' Brown by sending him straight to prison and placing a permenant injunction on any of his songs being sold or broadcast or drag the case out by indicting with strict bail conditions including a temporary injunction on media appearances including the sale or broadcast of his songs. These injunctions will of course be imposed in order to prevent Brown contacting Rihanna. Obviously as the latter option is my idea that is the one I support not least because it gives the US the option of providing some scandal about Brown breaking his bail conditions should they find their current suicide mission regarding Rihanna's tour to be somewhat heavy going.
That said it is far more likely that this is all simply a US bluff to build tension ahead of Chris Brown's Court appearance. Therefore I'm happy to stick to my position that the US can do what it wants. I'll be happy to wait until the actual verdict in the actual Chris Brown case is formally announced.
16:05 on 1/4/13.
To complicate matters further it appears that Brauchler has been removed from the case and replaced by Carlos A. Samour, Jr by Judge William Sylvester who cited concerns about the length of time the trial was taking. Therefore it's seems Brauchler's decision to seek the death penalty will have - at best - limited impact on the outcome of the case.
Obviously the trial of the Aurora suspect has implications for the current debate about gun control that is going on in the US and the debate about the death penalty that is always in the background of US politics. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting in trial debates about whether he would be able to mount an insanity defence there were attempts to compare the suspect to me. However in that immediate aftermath I attempted to explain the suspects ego driven actions by referencing an obscure Volcanoes song called "Look at Me Now." It turns Chris Brown also once recorded a song called "Look at Me Now. Therefore in recent developments in the case there seems to have been significant attempts to create confusion about whether the suspect is a metaphor for me or a metaphor for Chris Brown.
However in today's developments the case most certainly seems to be a metaphor for Chris Brown. The question it's attempting to pose is whether the Judge at Brown's Friday (5/4/13) Court appearance should give into popular opinion and 'kill' Brown by sending him straight to prison and placing a permenant injunction on any of his songs being sold or broadcast or drag the case out by indicting with strict bail conditions including a temporary injunction on media appearances including the sale or broadcast of his songs. These injunctions will of course be imposed in order to prevent Brown contacting Rihanna. Obviously as the latter option is my idea that is the one I support not least because it gives the US the option of providing some scandal about Brown breaking his bail conditions should they find their current suicide mission regarding Rihanna's tour to be somewhat heavy going.
That said it is far more likely that this is all simply a US bluff to build tension ahead of Chris Brown's Court appearance. Therefore I'm happy to stick to my position that the US can do what it wants. I'll be happy to wait until the actual verdict in the actual Chris Brown case is formally announced.
16:05 on 1/4/13.
Texas District Attorney Killed a Home.
On Saturday (30/3/13) the District Attorney (head prosecutor) for Kaufman County, Texas was found dead at home alongside his wife. Although investigations into Mike McLelland's death are still ongoing it's is widely believed to connected to the shooting and killing of Kaufman County prosecutor Mark Hasse in the parking lot of Kaufman County Courthouse on January 30th. (30/1/13). Along with the killing of the head of the Colorado prison service both of these killings are likely to be eventually linked to White Supremacist /fascist groups such as the Aryan Brotherhood. However the Kaufman County killings are certainly supposed to look like Texas telling California that if Chris Brown and the prosecutors who've been protecting him are still walking around then gun violence in the US is clearly too low.
In other news held over from last night the US is deploying some of it's top of the range F-22 Raptor aircraft to South Korea in a clear provocation to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). It will be interesting to see if the DPRK continues to play along by reacting. After all the excuse the US intends to use to justify inflicting this level of chaos on south east Asia is that it's trying to open up and expose the DPRK's leadership structure to the US' neighbours in the region.
And finally India's Supreme Court has rejected Norvartis' evergreen patent case. This is good news for most people because it should help to ensure the supply of cheap, life-saving generic drugs. It is though of course even better news for the Indian companies that produce and sell these cheap generic drugs.
11:45 on 1/4/13.
In other news held over from last night the US is deploying some of it's top of the range F-22 Raptor aircraft to South Korea in a clear provocation to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). It will be interesting to see if the DPRK continues to play along by reacting. After all the excuse the US intends to use to justify inflicting this level of chaos on south east Asia is that it's trying to open up and expose the DPRK's leadership structure to the US' neighbours in the region.
And finally India's Supreme Court has rejected Norvartis' evergreen patent case. This is good news for most people because it should help to ensure the supply of cheap, life-saving generic drugs. It is though of course even better news for the Indian companies that produce and sell these cheap generic drugs.
11:45 on 1/4/13.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
