Stepping On Mars: An Evolving and Unauthorized Elon Musk Biography by Damien Darby. $6.99 from Smashwords.com
From fleeing apartheid, sleeping on floors and showering at the local YMCA, to becoming perhaps the most prolific man in the modern world; Elon Musk is an exemplary figure. Everyone should hear about his tale, and be exposed to the prolific changes he is bringing forth into the contemporary human condition. From SpaceX Rockets to Tesla electric automobiles, Elon will soon have us stepping on Mars.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Those of you have read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (Penguin Modern Classics) will know exactly what I’m taking about in the headline – or at least you will after you read this book about entrepreneur Elon Musk.

Just to get you started, Elon Musk is the founder of Pay Pal and Tesla Motors. This is the man who will soon have us driving electric cars – despite the best efforts of the oil companies, the auto industry, the auto dealers and crooked politicians to stop him. The Tesla Moden S and Model X – and the Tesla Roadster – are the cars of the future. And it will take more than a few crooked politicians in Texas and elsewhere in the United States to stop him from selling these cars or the customers from buying them.

But he is more than just a one-trick pony – or even a two-trick pony. He is a visionary, like Steven Jobs or Ray Kurzweil – more far-sighted than the former and more successful than the latter. If you want to know more about him, this book will get you up to speed. You will be hearing a lot more of Elon Musk in the future.


style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-1103260381586412"
data-ad-slot="7393088468">


The actor Colin Firth has declined the leading role in David Kessler’s exciting new action rom-com Over in a Flash.

The role of emotionally-repressed aviation designer Conrad Finch had been specially written for Colin Firth and writer David Kessler has spent months in contact with Firth’s agent in an effort to secure the actor’s services. However the actor finally declined the role and informed Kessler of his decision through his agent.

“I am extremely disappointed,” Kessler was quoted as saying. “The role of Conrad was written for Firth and played to his strengths. The guitar-playing, the Amnesty International membership – even the carpentry skills. [Firth worked as a carpenter during a hiatus in his early acting career] There is no one who could play the role as well as he could.”

Firth’s agents declined to comment or give details of the actor’s decision. The female lead in the project (a military widow whose officer husband was killed in Helmand province) was offered to Alice Eve and the second male lead (a military test pilot) to Ewan Mcgregor. It is not clear if either will play these roles.

A pregnant Italian woman who suffered a panic attack when she forgot to take her medication for Bipolar Disorder was forcibly (actually unconsciously) subjected to a “compulsory caesarean section on the decision of the High Court under an ex-parte order obtained by social workers. (Ex-parte means that the other party didn’t get notice, wasn’t consulted and had no opportunity to challenge the decision.) This MIGHT be justified in itself if it was to address an immediate crisis. But the Essex authorities went on to refuse to return the child and have now put it up for adoption. This goes far beyond addressing the immediate crisis and raises questions about both the honesty and integrity of the Essex Social Services and the commitment of the British courts to law.

The claim made by the social services, was that she might suffer a relapse. A judge in Chelmsford Crown Court accepted this argument and ruled that the child should be put up for adoption in the UK. Now you would think that a judge would know the law. But this ignorant judge did not seem to realize that as the mother was normally resident in Italy, the matter of custody of the child falls within the jurisdiction of the Italian courts not the British ones.

The woman, who incidentally has two other children in Italy, has never been allowed to see the child, who is now 15 months old.

The question is why was this blatantly illegal action taken by the Essex Social Services and backed up by a judge who one presumes must have known better. Could it be that Essex is short of babies for adoption and is looking for short-cuts to find more? Even if it involves fabricating bogus pretexts and breaking the law? It reminds me of a book I wrote a few years back about a baby racket conspiracy between social services and a devious paediatrician: How I cleared my mother of a murder charge when I was eleven (The Ethan and Lexie adventures)

Remember Elle MacPherson, the foul, vile, spiteful, malicious bitch who bullied adviser Mary Ellen Field (falsely accusing her of talking to the press about her) and then sacked her, despite promising not to, if she attended an alcohol rehab course (hich Ms Field duly did, despite the fact that she was not an alcoholic)? There’s no reason why you should remember Elle MacPherson – she is not a paricularly memorable or talented woman, or even a particularly attractive one. But anyway the latest news – which for some reason has found its way into some newspapers – is that she has married billionaire Jeffrey Soffer, whom she had previously dated between 2009 and March 2012 and then broke up with.

I neither know nor care why he married her but I do hope he watches his back. The Macpherson bitch victimized Mary Ellen Field not because of anything Ms Field had done, but because of MacPherson’s suspicions triggered by the snooping done on her by the Rupert Murdoch press. But what made the McPherson bitch’s actions so vile was not just the way she behaved in the first instance, but the way she behaved after she found out.

Firstly she “forgave” Rupert Murdoch. That is she forgave him after he hired her – for a very large sum of money – to present Britain and Ireland’s Next Top Model. But not content with jumping into “bed” with the man who had caused MacPherson’s wholly unfounded suspicions in the first place, the bitch MacPherson then refused to assist Ms Field in any way with her law suit against News Group Newspapers – despite the fact that Field had sued them, rather than McPherson herself, for the unfair dismissal. Indeed Ms Field continued to speak faourably of Elle MacPherson and bent over backwards to excuse and forgive Macpherson’s treacherous behaviour!

MacPherson’s non-cooperation initially manifested itself in her refusal to make her telephone records available to Field in order to confirm what the police had already discovered – that MacPherson’s phone had been hacked. But MacPherson then took her treachery to a new level by issuing a written statement to the court (upon which she could not, of course, be cross-examined) saying she did not sack her former adviser Mary-Ellen Field because she believed she was leaking stories to the press. Needless to say, the statement did not say why she DID sack her, because that would have required thinking on the part of MacPherson, an activity which MacPherson is probably unaccustomed to engaging in. Also, of course, even with the advice of her lawyers, MacPherson would have been hard-pressed to come up with any reason for sacking Mary Ellen Field, given that she had no legitimate reason for doing so. And just to recap, MacPherson didn’t just sack Field. Immediately after that Field was fired by Chiltern, the company that employed her.

The effect of MacPherson’s refusal to supply phone records and her dubious statement to the High Court was that it forced Mary Ellen Field to withdraw her case. As things stand now, it is a matter of uncontested fact that Elle McPherson’s phone was hacked, that MacPherson sacked Field, that Field claims that the reason for her dismissal was false accusations by MacPherson of allaged press leaks by Field, that Macpherson has belatedly denied that this was the reason for dismissing Field but failed to offer any other explanation. However, this was insufficint basis for Field’s suit against News Group Newspapers to succeed.

The question is why was Murdoch ready to pay a large sum of money to an untalented aging model like Macpherson in what does look awfully like an effort to secure her cooperation in damage-limitation exercise by thwarting a meritorious suit in which the sum of money involved would almost certainly have been much smaller? Could it be that what Murdoch was worried about was not the payment of money but the emergence of facts that the “newsman” Ruper Murdoch does not want to come out into the light of day? Is that the measure of Murdoch’s commitment to the dissemination of news?

So let’s see what this adds up to.

1) Rupert Murdoch’s henchmen hack Elle Macpherson’s phone.
2) Mary Ellen Field is bullied into alcohol rehab by Macpherson for no good reason, and then
3) sacked despite being promised that she would not be.
4) Macpherson jumps into “bed” with Murdoch, the guilty man and neither compensates nor apologizes to Mary Ellen Field, the innocent victim of Macpherson’s and Rupert’s machinations.
5) And then to top it all off, Macpherson sabotages Mary Ellen Field’s attempts to get compensation, even though Ms Field stayed loyal to Macpherson and didn’t go after her DESPITE MACPHERSON’S TREACHERY!
6) Elle Macpherson is making large sums of money off Rupert Murdoch while Mary Ellen Field is left with legal costs of £75,000 – and that’s if the Murdoch Mafia doesn’t go for enhanced costs.

Thinking about Rupert Murdoch and Elle Macpherson, I am reminded of a line from The Great Gatsby.

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

Who can play the lead? is a new series of books and screenplays in which the reader is invited to make suggestions as to who should play the leading roles.

Over in a Flash (Who can play the lead?), the first in this series, is a romantic comedy about an emotionally-repressed aviation engineer who steals an advanced fighter to jet to get back to his ex.

Readers are invited to make suggestions for who should play the roles ofConrad and Alison. Also welcome are suggestions as to who should direct the film.  Please write an Amazon review and put the suggestions in that review.

 

It is becoming an almost daily story: scum of the earth viciously assault innocent person, scum of the earth caught, scum of the earth brought before judge and found guilty, scum of the earth told they are very naughty boys (or girls) or have done a terrible thing and then sentenced to suspended sentences or community service and turned out onto the streets.

Time and time again it happens and time and time again we wonder if the judge speaks the English language.
“You did something very wicked and instead of punishing you I am going to spout a load of hot air and then let you go. This is how our criminal-friendly judges behave. And Judge Shani Barnes is no exception.

In this case the scum of the earth are: Kieran Hawker (18)  Robert Elsey (19), Aaron Henery (18), Dean Riley (19), Anthony Patton (27) and two seventeen-year-olds who cannot be named because the law protects criminals who are younger than 18. These namby-pamby little mama’s boys – who haven’t got a testicle or a brain cell between them – conducted a vicious assault on three innocent people without any legitimate reason. For the full story see here.

But scum doesn’t grow in a vacuum.  Where are the people who brought them up? The people who were supposed to teach them right from wrong?  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would have to conclude that those who brought them up are scum too.

There is really only one cure for people like this – a taste of their own medicine!

 


I am pleased to announce the relaunching of this book:

When 10-year-old Ethan’s Blaine’s parents decide to have another baby, it’s the happiest day of their lives. But the sudden, unexplained death of the baby plunges their world into tragedy. And things get worse when Ethan’s mother is accused of murder by an over-zealous doctor. With the help of his new book-wise friend Lexie Thatcher (a judge’s daughter) Ethan does the only thing that any internet-savvy kid can do – he turns detective!

By using the Internet and hacking into various computer networks, Ethan discovers a web of lies and corruption involving a devious doctor and a crooked social worker. But it turns personal when he finds out that his parents may be involved in a baby-selling racket.

And with his mother’s case now being heard by the jury, the intrepid Ethan realizes that he cannot solve the case from the comfort of his room and the safety of his computer. He most go out into the world to find the answers – even if it means risking his life …

A twenty-year-old-woman, Naomi Oni, had acid thrown in her face by a woman who turned out to be a former friend of hers.

Naomi Oni was walking to her home in Daggenham from Victoria’s Secret in Westfield Stratford, where she works. At 12:40am when she was five minutes from her home and talking to her boyfriend on the phone, she heard some one behind her. She turned round to see a woman who then threw acid in her face, blinding her in one eye and causing severe visual impairment in the other.

It later transpired that the woman who carried out the attack had once been her friend.

Once again another criminally-friendly British judge has demonstrated her readiness to pervert justice in order to spare a vicious thug the prison sentence that any honest judge would know that she deserved, because she felt sorry for the thug’s children. She also let off the slag’s “partner” and cousin – who were also guilty – despite the fact that there were no legitimate grounds for her to do so.

The slag in question is 26-year-old Amanda Lowe.

The incident, that occurred at 8:15 pm on May 21st of this year, began when the slag Amanda Lowe shouted verbal abuse at Khuram Nisar calling him a “fucking Paki” and “terrorist” when he was minding his own business in Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester’s city centre. Mr Nisar responded by telling 26-year-old Wesley Earls (i.e. the partner of the slag) to control the rude aggressive woman.

At that point, Earls and Lowe (who have had a baby together but haven’t bothered to get married) viciously assaulted Khuram Nisar, assisted by Lowe’s cousin Daniel Wray (a twenty one year old little boy who feels safe pretending to be a man when he has the backing of another man and a woman! ) Earls punched Mr Nisar to the ground while Wray punched him in the head. Rowe kicked him viciously in the head, leaving the innocent man with cuts and bruises both to his body and his head.

The slag Lowe (who was pregnant at the time) even showed her total lack of responsibility for her children, aged eight and four months, by leaving them unattended in order to participate in the attack. This also showed her brazen disregard for the safety and health of her unborn child.

After the attack, the slag was so excited by her racist crime that she re-enacted the vicious kick for passes-by while wheeling along the four month old that she had previously left unattended while participating in the vicious assault. All three of the scum were arrested 20 minutes in Oldham Street nearby.

At the trial – faced with overwhelming CCTV evidence – Lowe pled guilty to Racially Aggravated Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm, whilst Earls, and Wray pled guilty to plain Actual Bodily Harm. Needless to say, they all had form – and plenty of it. Between them the three scum bags had 21 previous convictions – that is, actual offences for which they have been convicted. (NB It is unusual for habitual criminals to be caught and convicted of all the offences that they commit.)

In the case of Amanda Lowe, this is her fourth conviction in six years. She has convictions for assault and disorderly behaviour going to when she was 17.  And it should come as no surprise that she committed such a vicious crime given that she has failed to comply with previous community orders. This in itself should have been enough for the slag to get a custodial sentence.

But what did judge – Lindsey Kushner QC – do?

Well before I answer that, let’s look at what did she said?

First she said that “It is fantastic to have this CCTV footage. It is good to see the events as they happened because they are horrifying when you see them.” So there was no doubt about what they did and what the judge knew.

Then she said to Lowe, “Your record is terrible for violence given that you are 26 years of age. The damage you are doing to your children – there at the time and seeing you drunk, the risk you put them at – is disgraceful.”

So much for the effect on the dirty little slag’s own children. But what about the effect on the victim of the violence. The ever-so -perspicacious judge noted that “People have been killed and maimed through being kicked in the head.”

So did she sentence the slag to a custodial sentence?

Er… no. Instead she gave Lowe a 12-month sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered her to attend a programme for women offenders. She explained that she was not sending Lowe to prison because of the effect this would have on her children. In other words Lowe was getting a get-out-of-jail-free card because she had children – even though she was (and is) endangering her children and is clearly unfit to be a mother.

However the judge’s lenience also extended to the two men who were also given 12-month suspended sentences together with a community order each.

But the fearsome judge warned the three scum-bags that this was their last chance and if they re-offended they would go to prison.

To prison?

I doubt it. Especially if they come before another judge like Lindsey Kushner QC.

To read more and to see CCTV footage of the attack click here.

 

We’ve seen it all before: the brainless little savage who lives by the law of the jungle, the street-talk (woh-ever), the swaggering bullying attitude, the animal territorialism, the violence… and an innocent person ends up dead. But this time the savage was a girl.

That’s how the innocent Julie Sheriff was murdered by the savage Rebecca Douglas. In a parallel to the murder of Damilola Taylor case, Julie’s family had come to England, full of hope and enthusiasm only to see their loved one viciously murdered by our home-grown the scum of the earth.

The trouble is that the people who commit these crimes get off with very light sentences. In this case, for example, although she has been sentenced to detention at “her majesty’s pleasure”, the recommended tariff for the little savage is only ten years!

No wonder one case is followed by another… and another…

and another.