#radicalislam

Zucker feasted on your consent to be a sucker

Whatever the outcome of this hearing, much of the data collected was willingly offered by Facebook users. It was they who told people where they took vacation, the restaurant they ate or birthday they celebrated. It was they who adorned their avatar with a transparent French or rainbow flag as a back drop after another terrorist attack or to show support for same sex marriage. It was they who clicked the check box to agree to the “terms and conditions” immediately without reading it. Is that Zuckerberg’s fault? Questions however must be asked with respect to the ability to access microphones and cameras unbeknownst to users. How flagrantly was privacy law violated beyond that agreed by users?

For as much as Zuckerberg might look an evil violator of privacy laws (he may yet be proved to be so), if one wants real anonymity, social media is the last place to find it. It is doubtful anyone posts happy snaps on social media as a pure storage back up device. Many people crave attention and more than ever their self-actualisation stage in the ‘hierarchy of needs’ is driven by likes and shares rather than the Abraham Maslow’s original theorem of 75 years ago. The higher the ratio of “selfies” would probably be highly correlated to attention deficit disorder. Protesting the use of the data provided is a grossly naive assumption if not borderline negligent. Tucked away in the fine print of the words and conditions would surely have FB gaining their complete consent.

Ted Cruz took it to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on whether the social media giant ‘censors conservative’ news. He replied, “Silicon Valley is an extremely left-leaning place.While denying that he knows the political affiliations of the 15~20,000 staff who police content he said the group does its best to remove things that are considered hateful (e.g.hate speech, terrorism), hurtful or distasteful (e.g. nudity). It was brought to Zuckerberg’s attention that black conservatives (and Trump supporters) Diamond & Silk had their page blocked with 1.2 million followers on grounds of  “being unsafe to the community”. In any event, Zuckerberg deflected many of the questions in his testimony on grounds of the size of the organization but admitted not enough was done to police itself. Power corrupts…? Absolutely…?

Which brings the whole argument surrounding ‘free speech’ and social media sites exercising subjective political bias. It was only several years back that openly gay shock-jock Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter for causing ‘offence’ to a Ghostbusters actress. Yet what is offence? Where is the line drawn? What offends one might not offend another. However the censor would seemingly be able to use his or her subjective opinions, values and biases which makes it pretty clear what the outcome will be. President Trump learned that when a disgruntled Twitter employee temporarily suspended his account. Do not be surprised when we’re simply told to “get with the times” and accept the party line. Resistance is futile. It is the simplest way to shut down sensible debate.

Anyone active on social media is well aware of the risks of being targeted, trolled or attacked for expressing differing views. However do users require, much less want to submit to the machinations of the thought police? Shouldn’t they be free to choose what they view or pages they subscribe to? Indeed hate speech (not to be confused with difference of opinion) has no place but the majority of users are likely to be able to make that assessment without it having been arbitrarily made for them.

Then again, surely as a publicly listed corporation Facebook can decide what it wants to do with its site and let participants in the free market (who use it for no charge) decide for themselves that the obvious bias forces them to seek social media platforms elsewhere. Twitter share price was badly thumped for its blocking of certain groups and its share price is around 1/3rd the peak. It’s overall followers have fluctuated in the 316-330mn range since Q4 2016. The market works. It is taking Facebook’s shareprice to task on the grounds it will suffer for treating its users as mugs. Perhaps a look at activity post the hearings will show just how many mugs are still as active as before despite the threats to abandon the evil Zuck. The share price will respond accordingly.

It begs the question as to why a more conservative outfit hasn’t decided to make a Facebook equivalent which does not censor outside of clear violations of hate speech. Surely offering a replicated platform that didn’t censor free speech would be a massive winner. Users would also sign up to a simple (and SHORT) legal agreement that there is a risk of being offended and to commit to accepting it. Where clear violations of hate speech (e.g. threats of murder, terrorism etc.) are found such things can be reported to the authorities (with terms and conditions EXPLICITLY warning of such repucussions for violating easy to understand rules). Then again maybe Zuckerberg is right. Silicon Valley is indeed an extremely left-leaning [alt-left?] place! So this is why conservatives are behind the 8-ball on a free speech social media platform.

The sad reality is that social media is policed by the left and authorities seem keen to exploit the powers that provides. The examples are too many. Controversial conservatives have been blocked, banned and restricted for the most spurious of reasons. Diamond & Silk are hardly a danger to society. It is almost comical to think that.  Yet aren’t the subscription rates/followers of particular sites indicative of the ‘moods’ of people? Could it be that black, conservative and Trump supporter must be mutually exclusive terms in the eyes of the left’s identikit forcing the Facebook apparatchiks to enforce a subjective shutdown? If a public explanation was provided it would probably just say, “trust our objectivity’. Whaaaat?

At some stage if enough people feel they are being played around with they will choose of their own volition to leave and seek their social media thrills on other platforms. Or will they? It maybe too late. Blatant exploitation of social media by governments looks like an obvious trend. If we are only too willing to give up our data and cede any visibility of the inner circle’s terms of use of it we are on a slippery slope of our own making. Think about how your mobile device allows you to be tracked whenever and however. It can turn your camera or microphone on. It can triangulate your whereabouts anywhere across the world. What you’ve read, listened to and watched. Where are the privacy laws surrounding this? Is your local rep fighting in your corner? Probably not.

Could private conversations with a lawyer (client-attorney privilege) be bugged and used as evidence? Don’t laugh. As an aerospace analyst many moons ago, teams of specialists with anti-bugging devices trawled through the suites of the aircraft manufacturers’ chalets to ensure the opposition didn’t get wind of negotiations with airlines they were both competing to win large orders from. Illegal in the extreme but seemingly exercised by all parties. It was an unwritten rule.

However social media censorship hides deeper problems. It is also increasingly a tool to shut down debate and people like London Mayor Sadiq Khan has met with social media execs to collude on cracking down on ‘hate speech’. Surely policing spurious claims of hate speech is a lesser issue to the immediate threat faced by a capitol which saw its murder rate surpass that of New York. Not so. This is the dangerous turn in social media. Not whether our data is used for targeted advertising for cheap flights but used to pillory, interrogate and shut down innocents. After all social media has a half-life of infinity.

Take the controversial figure Tommy Robinson in England. The UK authorities and media wish us to believe he is an unhinged far right wing bigoted racist thug. Yet despite all of the times he has been jailed (for mostly trumped up charges), silenced and muzzled for publicising what he sees as a major problem in his community (i.e. radical Islam), the growth in followers continues to rise on his Facebook page (706,000). Maybe the authorities should keep tabs on them? Arrest them on suspicion of potentially causing hate crimes. Surely they are cut from the same cloth as Tommy? Afterall it is better to arrest a comedian for teaching a dog to do a Nazi salute to annoy his partner as it is less controversial to the state than tackling real issues. Perhaps authorities should pay attention to why Robinson’s following is so large? It is irrelevant whether one finds his viewpoints offensive or not, a majority of over half a million clearly don’t. He is no saint and would be the first to admit it. Still the authorities are trying everything to shut him down. Social media is being used as a watchdog.

Robinson has two best selling books –  ‘Enemy of the State’ and ‘Mohammad’s Koran: Why Muslims kill for Islam’. Is that not evidence that there are more people than the authorities would care to admit to that actually concur with his assessment? Maybe some want to read it out of curiosity? However when many of those same people see an undercover scoop done by the left leaning publicly funded Channel 4 on the inner workings of one of England’s most conservative mosques, praised by politicians as they true face of a peaceful religion. Even though the mosque had promised to clamp down on radical imams, the documentary revealed that despite assurances to government authorities, teachers still encourage students to believe that the only remedy for gays and apostates is to be killed. So maybe Robinson’s followers aren’t as fringe or minor in number as we would be made to believe? With the widespread outing of child grooming gangs across the UK, maybe Brits have had enough of the political hand wringing over politically correct discourse. The more the movement is pushed underground the harder it will be to stop vigilantism. We’ve already seen signs of it emerging. Think of the Guardian Angels in NY during the crime waves in the 1979.

What the Zuckerberg testimony brings to the surface is yet another example made clear to the public of the two tier dispensing of free speech. What worries the public more is that justice seems to be operating under the exact same framework. What the Channel 4 programme exposed with respect to blatant hate speech is incontrovertible. Yet will authorities arrest, charge and jail them as they would a Tommy Robinson? Not a chance. To encourage the murder of people that aren’t part of an ideology can’t be viewed as anything other than a willful threat.  Will the judiciary demand that scholars have their pages scrubbed from social media?

The shoes are on the wrong foot. Earlier this year, Austrian conservative Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone were arrested on arrival in the UK, detained and deported. Sellner for wanting to deliver a speech at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park (later delivered by Robinson) and Pettibone for wanting to interview Tommy Robinson (which he later conducted in Vienna). Neither look in the least bit dangerous. In this case, social media backfired on the state. In both cases, the public once again saw the double standards and the pervasive political posturing to beat the ‘controllable’ element into submission. Just as it is easier for the police to fine speeding motorists than actively pursue solid leads on catching grooming gangs the public rightly grows increasingly livid. Social media is being used more widely as a policing tool, with negative connotations. It isn’t just being used to foil terror plots but stomp on the rights of the average citizen.

Still there is some sympathy for Zuckerberg in that many people volunteered their information. If it was used in ways that violated ethical and more importantly legal rights it only goes to prove that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To that end, can we really expect lawmakers to cramp their own style when Zuckerberg has only highlighted how powerful the information he possesses can be used to sucker us more than they already do. That is the real crime we are seemingly becoming powerless to stop. Talk about the real Big Brother!

Is Tommy Robinson in the minority with a #2 rank book on Amazon?

IMG_0711.PNG

There is no moral equivalence to be drawn here with this latest attack outside Finsbury mosque in London. Innocent people were mown down by a van driven by someone filled with rage and hate. Social media is already screaming “bigot, racist, terrorist, anti-Muslim, radical” but there is a much bigger point not being addressed. The social boiling point is being reached much more rapidly than the media will admit.  Tommy Robinson was accused across social media for inspiring anti-Muslim rhetoric and fueling this person to commit the crime. His tweets matched his long standing convictions and predictions. Perhaps everyone who has bought Tommy’s book “Enemy of the State”  (ranked #2 book on Amazon UK, #131 in Canada and #2375 in America & now $350 on paperback) could be a risk of commiting such acts if that is the generalization. Of course it is nonsense. By the measure of the sales success perhaps his views maybe more mainstream than the negative ‘extreme’ moniker that is often hurled at him.

Could it be argued that a growing number of people are growing sick and tired of random jihadi attacks and see this book as a guide on how the government isn’t  handling the problem? That was not a intended to be a fact checking laced comment rather pointing out that many people potentially share his supposed ‘patriotic’ view as demonstrated by the commerciality of his writing. This is no longer a pure jihadi problem but one that is now likely to become tit-for-tat terrorism which carries far more negative connotations.

Think beyond the all too common propensity to push prejudices by lashing out on social media with little thought to trying to understand the full arguments of alternative views. Do we take a book review from apologists as fact when most of those have probably never read his book cover to cover? I am reading it because I want to form my own judgement rather than rely on others’ bias. He has strong views but no better way than self vetting. I’ve read Mein Kampf in what must be the most appalling book ever written – grammatically and content-wise. For one whose family escaped the deaths camps of Poland, trying to understand the ravings of Hitler brought added perspective to the horror although some might conclude reading it is an endorsement. It is not.

Innocents are dead or injured in this attack on Fisnbury Park Mosque. If indeed Tommy has a minority view, most people wouldn’t buy his book. Are all the people that buy it racist? Even if one thinks they are then even more reason to say that the government’s current pandering to political correctness won’t solve these hate fueled events whether radical jihadis or right (left?) wing nutters. Do violent video games incite massacres? Are all ‘Brexiters’ a carbon copy of the man who murdered Labour politician Jo Cox days before the referendum?  Do we need to bring in Islamophobic legislation like Canada (Bill M-103) to shut down people expressing concern? No, No and No. Current policy approaches are having the opposite effect as this attack proves.

At the time of the Manchester bombing I warned that vigilantism would be an ugly side effect of endless political correctness. Coincidentally Robinson suggested similar views about the rise of vigilantes after that post in a vlog. Wasting a lot of time on what  motivated the driver to commit such a terrible crime is not necessary. It is obvious. It is a revenge attack. This is highly likely to be a person screaming out for something to be done about a problem he obviously doesn’t think is being handled properly by elected officials. He probably viewed himself as a vigilante even if that title might be an overreach in this instance.  This in no way defends his despicable actions. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter was often used by IRA sympathisers. Still it doesn’t in anyway condone killing or maiming innocents, no matter what ideology, faith, race or background they come from. It is plain awful. The majority of people would agree with that view.

Revenge attacks and reprisals only exacerbate a rapidly deteriorating relationship. However trying to say the perpetrator proves that not all such attacks are driven by radical Islam doesn’t address the core of the problem. The majority of good people (note a deliberate statement not to go down the identity politics line) want an end to innocent deaths at the hands of extremists but if free speech and the ability to tackle radicalism (wherever it lies) aren’t openly addressed these events will sadly continue. It should be totally in the interests of the majority of ‘good’ Muslims (I detest that phraseology) to want to stop radicals from collectivising their faith with what they perceive is the wrong interpretation. Common sense would say they are the most important link in the chain to weed out those who want to kill in the name of Allah. They need to be front and centre of the debate.

What the UK government (and other governments) have created is a monster of their own making. Candles, flowers, lit monuments, avatars, expressions of sympathy and ‘love conquers hate’ posts dodge the need to have a serious debate on the problem. Now we have seen first hand a real openly targeted revenge attack in the UK, people need less sanctimonious posturing on social media and focus their energies on truly understanding what is at stake. That is to ditch the liberal hand-wringing and have an open debate on the problem. Robinson’s book isn’t selling in the volumes it is by chance. Politicians should pay attention to this trend. It is not about arguing about whether he is right or wrong but noting the simmering underbelly of a growing number of people fed up with inaction. This is the end of the beginning not the beginning of the end.

4 things that struck me including lightning that attacked the wrong Bolt

IMG_9130.JPG

4 things struck me this week about the depths we are allowing our society to plunge to. Reading much of the social media feeds it seems more people are prepared to defend the indefensible. That people are happy for the state to put forward bills that take away more freedoms, some who complain at the correct application of asylum policy and some willing to resort to physical violence on those who merely express free speech because they can’t win the debate in the marketplace for open debate.

1) All week we have been subject to the news in the aftermath of the London terror attack. If anything the tide seems to be shifting toward those that are wanting a more heavy handed response. The argument that the majority are peaceful Muslims is a reason to go soft on the violent minority is preposterous. Yet politicians including Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten, think words like “Islamic” are mutually exclusive alongside “extremist” or “terrorist.”

Whether one wants to debate the Quran verse for verse to justify separating these words is irrelevant. When such people scream in crazed tones about “Allah” as they carry out their evil deeds their interpretation is crystal clear. Some truly think that we win acceptance from those supporting caliphates by denying our own identity. Why give up on our culture for those beings who have no interests in enjoying the freedoms we provide much less reciprocating our kindness? Moreover the fate of most jihadists is generally so short they aren’t around long enough to benefit from our weakness.

It’s getting ever more ridiculous too. Countries  like Canada passed M-103 to ban Islamophobia forgoing every opportunity to include other religions by name. Germany now fines people who express concerns on social media over such Islamic extremism. Who could forget the cover up on rapes and sexual assault in Cologne on New Years Eve in 2016? Instead of taking a zero tolerance approach to the problem, honest citizens are gagged and threatened for raising a concerned voice because it is politically more acceptable.

I’ve just been in Victoria where a jihadi, who had terrorist links, murdered someone while on parole the other day. He died in the encounter. Instead of the Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews admitting fault for allowing him to roam the streets he turned the shortcomings of his own state’s legal decision making process into a blame game on the federal government for not dictating more powers over such rulings using the intelligence of ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. Well he has access to all that information and cooperation from these bodies yet still decided to let a jihadi out in general population. For a Premier that relishes government control over almost everything, how ironic that he tries to pass the buck when it is about subjects that may offend his voter base. Lame.

2) Ontario – how can people sit there and accept a law which allows the government to take children away from parents who refuse to accept their child’s gender identity or expression? Perhaps the parents should be tortured for good measure? If any parent was confronted with such a discussion with their kids most would be very concerned and want to be absolutely sure of the reasons behind such a decision. My kids have changes of mind over what they want for dinner. If dealing with sexual identity or expression most parents would naturally want to investigate the facts of why their child would seek to switch genders. It’s not just common sense but hard on parents too. It’s a serious topic. If we’re going to allow children to be able to overrule their parents on such decisions about their body, why not let them vote or drive at age 9? This is not saying they don’t have a voice. Why not suggest family counseling to help parents and children better understand the situation rather than threaten to snatch their kids for non compliance? Totalitarianism anyone?

Don’t forget that no matter what, parents are legally responsible for their kids. They have the stresses when they are sick, when they break bones in a park, come home late without phoning in, not to mention putting them thru schools, pay down a mortgage and so on. I wonder how many of the Ontario lawmakers are parents themselves?

3) I attended a speech given by the Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton earlier this week. Get Up had decided in its infinite wisdom to protest and try to prevent the forum. Instead of allowing others to express different views they wanted to shut it down in fine totalitarian fashion. Dutton gets a lot of rough treatment in the press although he is one of the few conservatives left in the Liberal Party. It’s a tough portfolio because opinions are so divided. His department cancelling the visas of seven Iranians who claimed asylum on grounds their lives were in danger only to be caught flying back to Iran for holidays. Not only did they deliberately lie to the government authorities and Aussie taxpayers they schemed our highly valued citizenship inappropriately. It doesn’t matter what race or ethnicity applicants are, we shouldn’t tolerate those scamming the system. We still have 5,000 asylum seekers who refuse to give up their identity or background. They have a deadline this year to do that but most are still refusing. What do they have to hide? Surely they’ve come here as a safe haven and if they’re truly escaping danger their stories should check out. Otherwise one has to assume they’re here illegitimately. Is this the image of a future model citizen? Is citizenship to be given away like confetti or is it a privilege worth cherishing? Yet all we hear is racist, bigot or worse if we raise any objection, sometimes with violent repercussions. The government has fast tracked the visas of 700 Yazidi women who have seen the males in their households murdered in front of them while they’ve been raped and made sex slaves by their medieval ISIS captors. Women from the Dept of Immigration have volunteered to go to these hot zones to accelerate their evacuation. So for all the flak Dutton cops, where are the feminists and progressives applauding such humanitarianism? They only want to focus on the gripes, red tape and protests to hinder the department’s efficiency to process the needy versus the selfish.

4) Which brings up the final strike. Conservative news columnist and TV presenter Andrew Bolt was physically attacked by leftist protesters yesterday for no other reason than to shut him down. Not only did he admirably defend himself in the unprovoked attack several media outlooks tried to turn it against him, suggesting he was a party to it. I’m sorry but what a slur. First, they were protesting his long held beliefs. I can guarantee you wouldn’t find Andrew Bolt initiating violence much less plotting to attend and disrupt a book signing event of a Marxist author. One he fervently believes in  free speech and secondly wouldn’t waste his time going out of his way to attend it. If these bullies of free speech can’t win an argument in the market place of open debate one has to assume their position is fatally weak to begin with. Having to ambush and spray glitter at a person who has completely fair and defendable positions is frankly pathetic. I dare them to ask to go on his show and debate their positions vs his. They would be forced to turn the glitter gun on themselves to hide their embarrassment one would imagine.

Be thankful we have people like Andrew Bolt not afraid to stand up for their beliefs. That stunt yesterday only makes Andrew Bolt look more right. At the same time all they’ve really done is kick an own goal by drawing even more attention to his number one rated blog, editorials, TV and radio programmess while they’ve attracted the attention of the North Melbourne Police.

Remember the Guardian Angels? Expect vigilantes like them in the UK

IMG_9120.JPG

At 3:40 into her press announcement on the London terror attack PM Theresa May called it what it is – Islamic Terrorism. Too often leaders in the West tip-toe around the words, hiding behind the spinelessness of political correctness. Even listening to Sky News this morning the commentators were trying to soften the images when there are dozens of ambulances, police vans and policemen changing into full tactical response kit. How stupid do the media and politicians take people for?

For once, Theresa May spoke with authority. She came straight to the point. “Enough is enough!”  She talked of an evil ideology and how we need to have the embarrassing conversations regardless. She didn’t hide behind politically correct statements.

Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson made an empassioned video about the state of what is going on in the U.K. It is full of expletives. He advocates laws of internment – like that conducted when the IRA was running amock – be introduced to get 3,500 monitored jihadis off the streets. He mentioned 19,355 people were detained (fact checked – 32% of Asian descent, Whites 31%) last year suspected of starting, plotting or being involved in suspicious activity surrounding terrorism. That’s over 50/day. You can fact check in the following document.

Looking at the March 2017 report by the U.K. Government ‘Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation: Arrests, outcomes, and stop and search, Great Britain, quarterly update to December 2016′ it notes 

1) Arrests for terrorism-related offences fell by 8% in the year ending 31 December 2016 compared with the previous year (from 282 to 260 arrests). Although the number of arrests has fallen, it is still relatively high when compared with other recent years.

2) There has been an increase in the proportion of people arrested of ‘White’ ethnicity, from 25% in the year ending December 2015 to 35% in the latest year. [note that 50% are Asian]

3) The number of persons in custody for terrorism-related offences has been rising; as at 31 December 2016, there were 183 persons in custody in Great Britain for terrorism-related offences an increase on the 143 persons in custody as at 31 December 2015.

Robinson made one point that I mentioned earlier this morning. If politicians keep turning a blind eye and chanting “love will always win over hate” vigilante groups will spawn. People hit a threshold. Remember when the Guardian Angels sprung up in NY in the 1980s when crime on trains was getting out of control and authorities weren’t containing it. Apart from the natural embarrassment of law enforcement being shown up for restrictive response capabilities they’ll be forced to adapt.

We can’t believe in this hug one hug all hashtag, social media avatar nonsense because it clearly has no effect. The West’s current policies are a reflection of the idea that taking the moral high ground is the way to stop it. However there is no point in trying to lie down and give up cultural and legal freedoms for those who have no interest in respecting it much less appreciate it let alone reciprocate such good will. Those conducting terror attacks may not represent the majority but how many people need to be stabbed, run over, bombed to realize these radicals want a caliphate?

The people who should most abhor these villains are everyday Muslims who must resent the extra scrutiny placed upon them. Having said that, how much cooperation and assistance is being provided to weed the radicals out. Are they too afraid to speak out against the crazed jihadis within their ranks? A lot of information gathering for intelligence agencies must come from these communities already but more is needed. There are many factors at grass roots level where we can pontificate all we like but the reality is repeated incidents like Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge prove the current state of play is untenable. Action not words. Zero tolerance is not an extreme response. Sitting back and lighting up monuments doesn’t change a thing.

What is this obsession with crowd funding?

IMG_0690.PNG

I get where crowd funding the plight of some poor starving tribe in Africa hit by a devastating famine, or a Bangladeshi child who needs emergency surgery to save her might have merit but to dig deep for Katie Hopkins takes some convincing. Her ‘final solution’ comments in the wake of the Manchester bombing got her fired from LBC. I’m not here to debate the radio station’s internal staff policies or how they execute them. Katie’s views are always strong, especially with regards to radical Islamic terrorism. I actually thought Janet Albrechtson’s article in the Weekend Australian was a far more eloquent summation of how to put a case forward to fix the problem.

Katie chose her words poorly (even if deliberately) and even if she expresses her views under the banner of ‘free speech’ she has to accept the consequences of those actions of the sponsor that pays her wages. In a sense LBC has the right (mostly for concerns to its advertisers) to make a call on that. Just like those US government agencies who were told to cease criticizing their President-elect on taxpayer funded websites. It was not a ban on free speech but a question of insubordination. To those that couldn’t see that view I suggested they send a message to their boss with the rest of the company CC’d about how stupid you thought he was. The LBC decision stands.

Still one has to wonder why there is a need to crowd fund Katie? Surely she will resurface again. I am surprised Breitbart hasn’t posted an applicaton form to join. Her darkest hour? Are they serious? I am sure she has had many darker. Though who is it for me to determine who wishes to give her money? After all it is charitable. I wonder though whether the tax authorities must have a good, hard look at such crowdfunding and deem whether there is a legitimate tax deductibility case to be had…

Having said that, what a sign of the times that crowd funding tells us about how deeply certain issues affect others. The flip side is they only think she is worth 100,000 pounds. If I ever get crowdfunded I can only hope the figure is far higher.