News

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!  Amanda Knox is to tell her story in a book to be published by HarperCollins!

But not everyone is happy.  For instance, Nick Ferrari said on the radio a few days ago that he had not the slightest desire to read it.  Now I am a great fan of “Old Nick” and agree with him on many issues.  But I can’t help thinking that on this occasion he is wrong.  Whilst I am deeply reluctant to put money into Amanda Knox’s pocket, I for one am very anxious to hear her side of the story and discover what she has to say.  And I will be hanging on to her every word.

With the aid of a competent ghostwriter, Miss Knox will finally be able to tell us which of her of her several conflicting versions of events is actually true.  Was it the one where she said that she and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, happened to be at Sollecito’s flat on the whole night when her “friend” Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered – an event so traumatic that it sent Miss Knox into cartwheels?  Or was it her story that she was at home, but in the kitchen and that she put her hands over her eyes to block out Meredith’s screaming? (Her current story is that it was the former – but will she stick to it for the book?)

She might also tell us why she falsely accused Patrick Lumumba, an innocent man.  Her story so far is that she was forced to do so by the Italian police.  But is that true?  Did the Italian police have any reason for wanting to frame Lumumba? Did they have some grievance against him? Is there any evidence that they harboured any animosity towards him? Was there any history of any conflict between him and the police of such magnitude that they would want to frame him for murder? Or did they simply select him at random and not bother to check if he had an alibi? Indeed did the Italian police really force Amanda Knox to say anything false? Or was this just another lie on the part of Amanda Knox to explain away the fact that she made a false accusation against an innocent man? And if her explanation for why she lied does not stand up to scrutiny, then what was her real reason for lying? Lies are usually self-serving. But how could she benefit from falsely accusing an innocent man?

That is, however, the least of her ghostwriter’s worries. They already have their work cut out. They will probably have to tone down the number of times the words I and me are used. It may be Amanda Knox’s story but the publishers won’t want to over-emphasize her self-obsessed, narcissistic perception of herself as some kind of latterday Joan of Arc.

Knox’s boyfriend and fellow acquitted former accused, Raffaele Sollecito, is also apparently writing a book about the case – or having one written with his name attached. But Meredith Kercher herself  is no longer with us.  Her voice has been silenced forever by the scum of the earth – which gives Knox and Sollecito carte blanche to say what they like without fear of contradiction.

And this lies at the heart of the matter, because Meredith Kercher’s story will tragically – and unjustly – never see the light of day.  And hers is the book that all decent people would truly want to read. But that would take a real ghostwriter.

 

It is easier to get sent to prison in England for contempt of court than for assaulting a fellow human being. I don’t mean that it is easier to prove. I mean that once proven, contempt of court is more likely to result in imprisonment than assault – even a gang assault that leaves one’s victim seriously injured.

In the case to which I refer, a tribunal of arrogant bullies – sorry judges – has sentenced a juror by the name of Theodora Dallas to six months imprisonment for carrying out internet research at home on the defendant in at a criminal trial on which she was sitting. The tribunal, consisting of Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Openshaw and the risibly named Lord Judge, also denied their victim – sorry the convicted party – leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Of course she can apply directly to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. But the fact that the judge’s denied her this right – in a case that obviously has implications that require the Supreme Court’s attention, shows that they are more concerned with flexing their muscles than with the administration of justice.

Now first of all – lest any criminals or their friends accuse me of missing the point – let me stress that checking out a defendant online IS contempt of court and that the jurors were all warned not to. And contempt of court can draw a custodial sentence. But this was a first offence and we are always told – by our judges no less – that first-time offenders should be treated with leniency. At least that is what we are told when they have committed assault or affray or even ABH.

Yet apparently those offences are not as serious, in the eyes of our esteemed judiciary, as checking out an accused online. It seems that the same judges who let violent criminals off with non-custodial sentences and who water down the sentences of even the most serious violent offenders, choose to get tough on a woman who committed contempt of court. In other words, beat the crap out of a private citizen by all means but don’t dare ruffle the feathers of the judiciary.

Unfortunately for their Lordships, ruffling the feathers of judges is what I do. So let’s consider the judges who reached this decision.

Only a week ago, Lady Justice Hallett reduced the prison sentence of Viktor Akulic who had raped a woman, knocked her to the ground and stamped on her head. Then when the woman reported the attack to the police, Akulic went round to her home and threatened to kill her. Akulic had already spent half his adult life in prison for other offences, including the rape of a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL. And Lady Justice Hallett KNEW ALL OF THIS. Yet although it would be obvious to all but a mental defective that Viktor Akulic WILL re-offend as soon as he gets the chance, Lady Justice Hallett and her co-conspirators – sorry judges – reduced his sentence from a minimum of eight-and-a-half years before he could apply for parole to seven.

Okay so much for Lady Justice Hallett, but what about Lord Judge? Well he’s an interesting case. In 2009 parliament finally decided to get rid of that legal dinosaur that allowed people who kill their spouses to use their spouse’s adultery or infidelity as a defence, watering down murder to manslaughter. The new law stated that “In deciding whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity IS TO BE DISREGARDED.” So although loss of control could reduce murder to manslaughter, alleged infidelity  (and it was very easy for the man’s lawyer to invent such infidelity) could no longer be used to achieve such reduction.

This reform was long overdue for many reasons, including the fact that the old law was almost invariably used by men to get off the hook for murdering their wives and almost never in those rare cases of wives murdering their husbands. But Lord Judge decided that he and his colleagues didn’t have to bother with something so trivial as the law or the will of parliament (nor indeed for the right of women not to be murdered). So he decreed – in brazen defiance of the law – that infidelity could be considered as adding to the “potency” of any other conduct which might cause a loss of self-control.

In other words, Lord Judge knowingly subverted the will of parliament and willfully deprived women of adequate protection of their right to life, by deliberately misinterpreting the law in pursuit of his nefarious, misogynistic agenda.

The Honourable Justice Openshaw on the other hand, seems to be a reasonably decent judge who does not let criminals get away with it. This might be because his own father – also a judge – was stabbed to death by a criminal whom he had sentenced to borstal for theft.

However, there is something deeply troubling in the case of Theodora Dallas. The reason that she was caught was because she told other jurors what she had found about the accused and one of them reported it to an usher. But the thing is that jurors swear an oath not to disclose anything said in the jury room and jury ushers also swear oaths not to ask the jurors any question other than have they reached a verdict and not to “suffer” that anything be disclosed to them.

So in order for Miss Dallas to have been caught, at least two other people must have breached their oaths. I’m not saying that what Miss Dallas did was right. But the fact that she was sentenced to six months for a non-violent first offence while thugs walk out of the courtroom laughing, child rapists get off early and murderous husbands get off with the lesser charge of manslaughter, suggests that there is something deeply wrong with the priorities of our much vaunted judiciary.

 

Once again, British justice has been perverted by a criminal-friendly judge who has allowed two vicious thugs to escape custodial sentences for viciously beating up an innocent man – despite the fact that the pair of scumbags were obviously unrepentant for their vicious crime. It started when 24-year old Joseph O’Reilly (left) was walking with his girlfriend, sales adviser Lucy Blackledge (22) outside Piccadilly station in the centre of Manchester in January last year. They were heading home when they saw the three hooligans walking towards them aggressively, tipping over rubbish bins and scattering their contents in the road.

Like any decent, civic-minded citizen, Mr O’Reilly challenged their boorish behaviour by asking: “What on Earth are you doing?” But in what has now become an all-too- familiar pattern, the thugs responded by viciously attacking Mr O’Reilly.

First the cowardly, yellow-bellied, lily-livered little Mama’s Boy Thomas Lane (a 24-year-old sign writer from Stockport), feigned punches against Mr O’Reilly that he didn’t have the guts to actually throw. Then the similarly spineless Daniel Chrapkowski (24) – knowing that he had the backing of his mates – punched Mr O’Reilly in the face and then tripped him up in a well-coordinated move. (Although the attack was supposedly spontaneous, the routine was quite well-polished. These little boys knew that they were doing.)

After the thugs had brought their victim to fall to the pavement, they continued with their little-boys-playing-at-being-men routine by viciously punching and kicking Mr O’Reilly in the face and stomach before running off like the namby-pamby little squirts they really are. The thugs also included Oliver O’Neill, 23 of Bramhall, Stockport.

Mr O’Reilly sustained a broken jaw and bleeding to the brain and required a metal plate fitted into his face. He needed 40 hours of hospital treatment and had to go back into hospital several months after the attack after collapsing. Although only 24, his life has been ruined by these young thugs – who were presumably brought up by the scum of the earth. Mr O’Reilly still suffers severe dizzy spells and numbness in his mouth and can chew food on only one side of his mouth.

The experience has also affected him psychologically as he now worries about going out alone from his home in east Manchester.

But the worst was yet to come because when the crime came to court, the threesome – aided by smooth talking lawyers and the connivance of a criminal-friendly judge – were able to pervert justice by getting away with excessively lenient sentences.

Firstly the spineless Thomas Lane claimed that that he had made no physical contact with the victim. He disingenuously described his aggressive feigning of punches towards his wholly innocent victim – the event that triggered the violence – as “shadow boxing” and was allowed to plead guilty to affray rather than Grievous Bodily Harm. His lawyer, Paul Hodgkinson, said: “He accepts he had been out drinking and engaging in tomfoolery, but that mischief doesn’t cross the custody threshold.”

Now there’s a dishonest statement if ever there was one. It was not “tomfoolery” or “mischief” that Lane was engaged in, but thuggery. And his lawyer well-knows it. This is an example of the way in which lawyers use language in a conscious effort to cheat justice.

The unemployed (and unemployable?) Daniel Chrapkowski admitted causing grievous bodily harm but his lawyer Katie Jones, falsely claimed that “He is extremely remorseful and wishes to apologise to the court. It is extremely out of character.” We saw just how remorseful he was just a few minutes later when this picture was taken outside the court building.

At Manchester Crown Court, Judge Martin Steiger QC, who decided earlier in the week to pass non-custodial sentences on Chrapkowski and Lane, instead gave Chrapkowski a 12-month suspended sentence.  He also ordered that he be electronically tagged for two months and complete 160 hours unpaid “community service” – which as we all know is a joke that basically means sitting around for two hours reading the newspaper.

The spineless, sissy-boy Thomas Lane was given a 12 month community order, ordered to pay £250 costs and do 120 hours community service. He also has to comply with a curfew.

23-year old Oliver O’Neill, who was on bail for another attack at the time, was jailed for 27 months after pleading guilty to two other grievous bodily harm charges.

But that’s not the end of the matter, because the two who did not get the custodial sentences that they deserved demonstrated their dishonesty, arrogance and contempt for the law outside the court as these pictures show.

The question is, did their lawyers really think their clients were remorseful. The law holds that lawyers represent their clients and act on their client’s instructions. But would such stupid people as Thomas Lane and Daniel Chrapkowski have had the brains to pretend they were remorseful in court, if some one had not put the idea in their heads? Clearly their behaviour outside the court suggest that they were not clever enough to have thought of it by themselves. So some one must have told them to pretend that they were remorseful to get lower sentences.

I wonder who.

 

As the headline suggests, the Kindle version of this book is now available.  To buy it, just click on the link above and it will take you straigjht to Amazon where you can a copy for only 86p.  Remember this book was originally published by Hodder in hardback for £17.99 and then by Coronet in paperback for £6.99.  So you’re getting a real bargain here – a great thriller at an unbelievable price.

And if you still aren’t sure, you can download a sample and check out the first sixteen pages.

 

When Mossad operative Dov Shamir kills an al-Quaida terrorist in London, his face is captured on a webcam, turning a routine elimination into a nightmare.

Branded a “rogue operative” and abandoned by his own people, Dov takes refuge in the home of the one man he can count on to help him – a Palestinian intellectual who was his professor and mentor at the School of Oriental and African Studies where he did his PhD. Though Dov and Rahman are divided by politics, Rahman is a man of immense personal loyalty and a staunch opponent of anything that will bring the Palestinian cause into disrepute (as well as being Dov’s former SCUBA diving partner).

But it becomes particularly important to help when Dov reveals the terrorists’ plan to blow up the sunken wreckage of an old World War II munitions ship packed with high explosives. And when the terrorists ambush them, Dov has to form an uneasy alliance with Salima – Rahman’s feisty and distrustful 24-year-old daughter.

Unable to convince the skeptical authorities that the attack on the ship is anything other than a desperate fabrication by Dov, their only hope is a junior police officer. But he has motives of his own. And with the net closing in on the fleeing Israeli operative, Dov and Salima find themselves caught in a race against time to stop the attack before hundreds of innocent people are killed.

I have to confess that I had reservations about Hidden Menace, because on re-reading, it does seem to stereotype Arabs somewhat. I say “stereotype” rather than “demonize” because the book does have some “good” Arabs too – i.e. those who oppose terrorism. But I still can’t escape the feeling that I have created stereotypes and effectively sold my soul to the realms of Hackdom, as it were.

This is not what I am about – normally. I like to think that I possess a modicum of literary sophistication. To this end, I try to avoid stereotypes in my characterization, just as in my use of language I avoid cliches like the plague. On the other hand, controversy sells. Look at good ol’ Jeremy Clarkson raising hell by suggesting that public sector workers who go on strike against unilateral attempts to breach the pension provisions of their contracts should be shot. A silly off-the-cuff comment that is quintessentially Jeremy Clarkson. In other words, the kind of low-brow, man-in-the-pub macho talk upon which Clarkson has built his stag-party reputation.

And guess what? All of a sudden, everyone’s talking about Jeremy Clarkson just when his star was fading. It seems that just as being outrageous can buy the untalented their proverbial 15 minutes, it can also breathe a new lease of life into the talented but erratic.

And while we’re on the subject of talented but erratic, let’s get back to talking about me! My new book may not be a literary masterpiece. As with cars that’s my other book. But it is what I would call an excellent Velvet Underground piece – in other words, a Loo Read.

And as for that cheap shot at publicity…. well here’s my contribution to the debate: Jeremy Clarkson should be shot! Now would somebody kindly report me to the Director of Public Prosecutions – PLEASE!!!!!!

 

30 years ago, I predicted that the rate at which the universe was expanding was itself increasing, but I forgot to publish it.  Consequently I was denied the credit (and the Nobel Prize) when it was discovered in 1998 that the universe is indeed expanding at an accelerating rate.

So, to avoid another debacle like that, here are my scientific predictions for things that will be experimentally verified in the coming years (some of these have already appeared in my published books):

  1. The velocity of light is increasing by a very small amount over time
  2. The velocity of light measured over a small local coordinate system will be greater than measured over a large distance (if not for Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, it could tend towards infinity)
  3. Antimatter possesses no gravity but is subject to the gravity of matter (that’s really two predictions)
  4. Antimatter decays into photons rapidly even if it does not encounter matter

I will publish the explanations for these predictions later.  I may even wait until they are experimentally verified.  I will merely provide a hint: they are all linked to the expansion of the universe.

But for now just remember: you read it here first!


 

Is there no end to government corruption?

In 2008, the government nationalized the bankrupt bank Northern Rock and injected $1.4 Billion of taxpayer’s money to save it.  This was in addition to the £25 Billion that Northern Rock owed the Bank of England.  The bank had got over-extended by lending  too generously, way beyond its deposits, and relying on inter-bank lending, which then dried up when the American banks got caught out by their bad loans to unreliable borrowers.

At the time of the bailout, we were told by the last government that in due course the taxpayers would get their money back.  At no stage did Gordon Browns and Alistair Darling – or their cheerleader like Lord Skidelsky – qualify that pledge with the word “some.”  They said we would get our money back.  Yes it would take time, but in the end we get our money back.

They even said that we would probably make a profit!

But what have they done now?  They have sold Northern Rock to Richard Branson’s “Virgin Money” for £747 million, plus a  further £50 million within six months. According to press reports “an additional £150 million will be realised in the form of a financial instrument.”  Finally the deal promises “up to” an additional £80 million if Northern Rock is sold or publicly floated within  five years of the deal. In other words it is being sold for £947 million, with the possibility of a further £80 million.

In other words, we taxpayer’s poured in £1.4 Billion, we assumed the full risk when the bank was going through that critical period and now that the risk is over, Richard Branson is going to get his greasy paws on our property for less than three quarters of the price that we taxpayers paid for it!


What is interesting, is that so far the politicians of the last government haven’t contradicted the claims of the Chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, that this is good deal for the taxpayer.  In other words, they do not dispute that Northern Rock is worth less than we taxpayers were forced to pay.  By the same token, George Osborne and David Cameron didn’t criticize the bailout at the time on the grounds that we were paying too much for what the asset was actually worth.  Although they criticized the incompetence that led to the collapse, they supported the bailout -presumably because they wanted to stay on the right side of their cronies in the banking sector for that rainy day in the future.


This is not the first time Branson tried to buy Northern Rock.  he tried when it first got into trouble, but on terms that would give him the profit while the risk would still be with the taxpayer.  But now he has got his way.  And of course the bank is still some £8.9 BILLION in debt to the Bank of England.  They have been repaying this faster than expected – which no doubt explains why Branson is so anxious to get his paws on the bank.  It will be a cash cow for him and the British taxpayer will carry the burden.

But that’s no skin off Branson’s nose – most of his companies are registered abroad… IN TAX HAVENS!!!!!!

 

I remember after Michael Jackson was acquitted of child molesting charges, a silly little star-struck English girl who had flown all the way out to America to “support” him, telling a reporter that the verdict proved that the three people who had accused Michael Jackson of abusing them (at different times) were “liars.”  Of course she was talking a load of rubbish, but it gave a powerful insight into the warped mind of the immature, adolescent fan – the type who loves the famous and wants to be famous herself (probably a “modu”).

I remembered wondering at that time if the empty-headed little idol-worshipper would have dropped everything and travelled thousands of miles to support a poor man accused of a crime whom she thought to be innocent.  But then again, perhaps the question was unfair because she wouldn’t even know of such a case.  It was obvious that she didn’t take an active interest in miscarriages of justice, controversial prosecutions or the innocence project.  She was simply a muddle-headed schoolgirl who wanted to support her idol regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty.

I remember also Michael Jackson’s claim that children come to his bedroom and that he “couldn’t stop them.” However, as one news organization pointed out at the time: no one gets to Michael Jackson’s bedroom unless he wants them to.

The reason this all came back just now is because it is these same empty-headed lunatics who were demonstrating outside a Los Angeles  courtroom for a very different reason these last few weeks.  This time it was not to support the accused but to crucify him.  That Michael Jackson’s death was the result of the cumulative effect of his lifestyle, they simply didn’t care.  That Michael Jackson was an accident waiting to happen mattered not.  That Michael Jackson was a man who was not used to hearing the word no – at least not since he escaped the clutches of his violent father – was of no significance to them.  That Conrad Murray had been on Jackson’s medical team for less than a month was ignored by jurors and Jackson fans alike.

As far as these moronic fans were concerned, Michael Jackson could do no wrong.  When he was accused of wrongdoing, his accusers were “liars.”  When he was the victim of his own poor life choices, he was the victim of others.

In the trial itself, the prosecution lawyers made mountains out of molehills – such as the fact that the doctor used an unorthodox method of CPR.  This may have a mistake, but it hardly adds up to negligence.  It was merely used to make him seem like a man who didn’t care – when in fact all it shows is that he was a man who lost his head in a crisis.  That shouldn’t happen to a doctor, but it can.  Worse still, the defence lawyers put up a surprisingly lacklustre defence – almost as if they didn’t want to be tainted by trying too hard to help the man whom the Jackson fans “knew” was guilty – in case it had a knock-on effect on their defence of others in the future.  (This actually happened with Barry Scheck in the Louise Woodwood case after he had successfully co-defended O J Simpson.)

With such a one-sided contest, it is hardly surprising that the baying mob of Jackson fans got what they wanted. La Toya Jackson described the verdict as “wonderful.”  Now La Toya Jackson has had a less than happy life, so perhaps she should not be judged too harshly.  After escaping from Jack Gordon, her abusive husband (who had been hired by her father to manage her career) she claimed that it was Gordon who had forced her to support the accusations of child molesting aimed against brother Michael.  This may be true, but in the course of supporting those accusations, she did raise a legitimate question when she asked whether it was appropriate for an adult male to be taking other people’s children into his bed when he was not related to them or their parents.

Now I am not saying that I am in any way happy about Michael Jackson’s death.  His first hit, Got to be there, remains one of my all-time favourites, as is the deeply moving She’s out of my life.  But there seems to be something rather malicious and stomach-turning about the sight of those fanatics who supported Jackson when he had done wrong, baying for the blood of a man who was only on the periphery of responsibility to Jackson’s untimely death.  It is their double-standards, their sickening idol-worship and their general lack of morality that I find so deeply offensive.

 

So with halloween over and Guy Fawkes night almost upon us, we are now entering the Christmas rush, when shops start selling like mad as frantic customers venture out into the cold, dark streets to buy presents for family and friends, big gifts, little gifts, special gifts for that special person and stocking fillers.

A few years ago, a survey showed that the Scots are actually the most generous people in Britain but that Yorkshiremen lived up to their miserly reputation.  Then a couple of years later another survey showed that the people of Yorkshire are the most generous but that the Scots lived up to their reputation.  So is this just a case of you-can-prove-anything-buy-surveys?  Well actually, no.  The surveys contained a lot of useful information once you actually looked at their methodology.

The first survey – in which the Scots came out on top – looked at how much people spent on Christmas presents. The Scots led the country at £401 (this was quite a few years ago) whereas our friends from Yorkshire averaged a mere £80.  But in the second survey, the basis of comparison was how much they gave to charity.  And here the roles were reversed, with the Yorkshire people showing as the most generous and the Scots coming out as misers.

But this all serves to illustrate a very good point made many years ago by James (the amazing) Randi when he dismissed palmists, astrologers, dowsers, tea leaf readers and phrenologists et al over their alleged ability to discern human traits from unscientific and obviously irrelevant “evidence.”  He pointed out that it is meaningless to say that some one is “generous” not only because it is what most people want to hear, but also because people can be generous in some respects and mean in others.  The same can be said of intelligent, friendly, courageous, introvert, extrovert or any other human characteristic.


But to return to generosity and Christmas, I would venture to suggest that it is a time when lonely people yearn not for others to be generous, but for the kind of human company that would enable them to be generous – i.e. some one to buy Christmas presents for and some one to go Christmas shopping with.  Of course one can treat oneself to an iPad, iPod or iPhone or an amazon Kindle or any one of the countless gadgets or celebrity books or cookbooks that flood the shops at this time of year.  or even go on a holiday abroad.  But it’s not the same as having some one to share it with.

At least if your a Scotsman.

 

Okay, so we all knew the RMT were a bunch of bully boys.  We’ve all seen how their train drivers demand the most outrageously exorbitant wages – twice those of bus drivers, even though their job requires less than half the skill – taking advantage of the fact that the London Underground is a legally-protected monopoly and knowing that the customers cannot take their business elsewhere.

But how many of us knew that the RMT also harbours a swaggering bully boy, called Steven Hedley, who actively supports the “BDS” boycott of the Jewish State favoured by countless antisemites the world over?  Now of course the man is entitled to his views, however loathsome and idiotic they clearly are.  However, it transpires that our shaven-headed tough guy doesn’t want to debate the issue.  It appears that even letting the counter-arguments be heard is anathema to this swaggering, testosterone-charged caveman.

Here he is ranting against Israel, alleging that the English Defence League displays the Israeli flag (presumably to wind up the Muslims) and claiming that this is “evidence” that Israel is a fascist state.  In fact the argument itself is evidence that Steven Hedley is either a cunning demagogue or a complete moron.  You be the judge:

Steve Hedley ranting against the Jewish state

And here is an excellent article about him from Harry’s place:

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/10/25/steve-hedley-rmt%E2%80%99s-london-transport-regional-organiser-youre-one-of-the-chosen-people/

And here is an article about it (with videos) from Richard Millet’s blog.

http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/threatened-and-told-im-one-of-the-chosen-people-at-trade-union-event/

Now you’ve probably guessed by now that Steven Hedley is so stupid he probably thinks that BDS stands for Bondage, Discipline and  Sado-Masochism.  However, as you can see, it is not just Steven Hedley swinging through the trees emitting blood-curdling war cries against the Jewish State.  That whole gang of troglodytes known as the RMT is behind him.  It seems that when they aren’t extorting money from tube passengers and British taxpayers, they’re masquerading as freedom fighters in a dispute they are too stupid to even begin to understand.