click links in text for more info
SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Political prisoner

A political prisoner is someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible for their imprisonment. The term is used by groups challenging the legitimacy of the detention of a prisoner. Supporters of the term define a political prisoner as someone, imprisoned for his or her participation in political activity. If a political offense was not the official reason for the prisoner's detention, the term would imply that the detention was motivated by the prisoner's politics; some understand the term political prisoner narrowly, equating it with the term prisoner of conscience. Amnesty International campaigns for the release of prisoners of conscience, which include both political prisoners as well as those imprisoned for their religious or philosophical beliefs. To reduce controversy, as a matter of principle, the organization's policy applies only to prisoners who have not committed or advocated violence. Thus, there are political prisoners; the organisation defines the differences as follows: AI uses the term "political prisoner" broadly.

It does not use it, as some others do, to imply that all such prisoners have a special status or should be released. It uses the term only to define a category of prisoners for whom AI demands a prompt trial. In AI's usage, the term includes any prisoner whose case has a significant political element: whether the motivation of the prisoner's acts, the acts in themselves, or the motivation of the authorities. "Political" is used by AI to refer to aspects of human relations related to "politics": the mechanisms of society and civil order, the principles, organization, or conduct of government or public affairs, the relation of all these to questions of language, ethnic origin, sex or religion, status or influence. The category of political prisoners embraces the category of prisoners of conscience, the only prisoners who AI demands should be and unconditionally released, as well as people who resort to criminal violence for a political motive. In AI's use of the term, here are some examples of political prisoners: a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.

Governments say they have no political prisoners, only prisoners held under the normal criminal law. AI however describes cases like the examples given above as "political" and uses the terms "political trial" and "political imprisonment" when referring to them, but by doing so AI does not oppose the imprisonment, except where it further maintains that the prisoner is a prisoner of conscience, or condemn the trial, except where it concludes that it was unfair. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has a much tighter definition: A person deprived of his or her personal liberty is to be regarded as a'political prisoner': In the parlance of many political movements that utilize armed resistance, guerrilla warfare, other forms of political violence, a political prisoner includes people who are imprisoned because they are awaiting trial for, or have been convicted of, actions which states they oppose describe as terrorism; these movements may consider the actions of political prisoners morally justified against some system of governance, may claim innocence, or have varying understandings of what types of violence are morally and ethically justified.

For instance, French anarchist groups call the former members of Action Directe held in France political prisoners. While the French government deemed Action Directe illegal, the group fashioned itself as an urban guerilla movement, claiming a legitimate armed struggle. In this sense, "political prisoner" can be used to describe any politically active prisoner, held in custody for a violent action which supporters deem ethically justified; some libertarians include all convicted for treason and some convicted of espionage in the category of political prisoners. There is still much controversy and debate around how to define this term and which cases to include or exclude. Political prisoners can be imprisoned with no legal veneer by extrajudicial processes; some political prisoners need not be imprisoned at all. Supporters of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima in the 11th Panchen Lama controversy have called him a "political prisoner", despite the fact that he is not accused of a political offense, he is held under secluded house arrest.

Political prisoners are arrested and tried with a veneer of legality where false criminal charges, manufactured evidence, unfair trials are used to disguise the fact that an individual is a political prisoner. This is common in situations which may otherwise be decried nationally and internationally as a human rights violation or suppression of a political dissident. A political prisoner can be someone, denied bail unfairly, denied parole when it would reasonably have been given to a prisoner charged with a comparable crime, or special powers may be invoked by the judiciary. In this latter situation, whether an individual is regarded as a political prisoner may depend upon subjective political perspective or interpretation of the evidence. In the Soviet Union, dubious psychiatric diagnoses were sometimes used to confine political prisoners in the so-called "psikhushkas". In Nazi German

Earl Ferrers

Earl Ferrers is a title in the Peerage of Great Britain. It was created in 1711 for 13th Baron Ferrers of Chartley; the Shirley family descends from George Shirley of Northamptonshire. In 1611 he was created a Baronet, of Staunton Harold in the County of Leicester, in the Baronetage of England, he was succeeded by the second Baronet. He married daughter of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. On the death of her brother Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, she became the youngest co-heir to the baronies of Ferrers of Chartley and the barony of Bourchier, which had fallen into abeyance on the death of the third Earl. Shirley was succeeded by the third Baronet, he was succeeded by his younger brother, the fourth Baronet. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London by Cromwell and died there in 1656. On his death the title passed to the fifth Baronet, he was succeeded at birth by his posthumous son, the sixth Baronet. He was succeeded by his uncle, the seventh Baronet. In 1677 King Charles II terminated the abeyance of the barony of Ferrers of Chartley in his favour and he became the thirteenth Baron Ferrers of Chartley.

His claim to the barony of Bourchier was overlooked, however. He served as Master of the Horse and as Lord Steward to the queen consort, Catherine of Braganza, was Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire. In 1711 he was created Viscount Tamworth, of Tamworth in the County of Stafford, Earl Ferrers, in the Peerage of Great Britain, he was succeeded in the barony of Ferrers of Chartley by his granddaughter Elizabeth, wife of James Compton, 5th Earl of Northampton. She was the daughter of the first Earl's eldest son the Hon. Robert Shirley, who predeceased his father. Lord Ferrers was succeeded in the baronetcy and earldom by his second son, the second Earl, he served as Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire from 1725 to 1729. He was succeeded by his younger brother, the third Earl, he was Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire from 1731 to 1742. He was succeeded by his nephew, the fourth Earl, he was the son of third surviving son of the first Earl. Lord Ferrers killed Mr Johnson, his land-steward, was tried, condemned for murder and hanged at Tyburn on 5 May 1760.

He is the last British peer to die a felon's death. On his death the titles passed to the fifth Earl, he was a vice-admiral in the Royal Navy. He was succeeded by his younger brother, the sixth Earl, his eldest son, the seventh Earl, died childless and was succeeded by his younger brother, the eighth Earl. When the latter died the titles passed to the ninth Earl, he was the son of Viscount Tamworth, eldest son of the eighth Earl. He was succeeded by the tenth Earl. On his death in 1912 the line of the sixth Earl failed; the late Earl was succeeded by the eleventh Earl. He was the great-great-grandson of Reverend the Hon. Walter Shirley, brother of the fourth and sixth Earls; as of 2010 the titles were held by his grandson, the thirteenth Earl, who succeeded his father in 1954 until death in 2012. Lord Ferrers was a prominent Conservative politician and held office in every Conservative administration from 1962 to 1997, he was one of the ninety elected hereditary peers that remain in the House of Lords after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999.

As of 2014 the titles are held by his elder son, the fourteenth Earl, who succeeded in 2012. The earldom of Ferrers is the senior earldom in the Peerage of Great Britain; the family seat is Ditchingham Hall, near Norfolk. Sir George Shirley, 1st Baronet Sir Henry Shirley, 2nd Baronet Sir Charles Shirley, 3rd Baronet Sir Robert Shirley, 4th Baronet Sir Seymour Shirley, 5th Baronet Sir Robert Shirley, 6th Baronet Sir Robert Shirley, 7th Baronet Robert Shirley, 1st Earl Ferrers Washington Shirley, 2nd Earl Ferrers Henry Shirley, 3rd Earl Ferrers Laurence Shirley, 4th Earl Ferrers Washington Shirley, 5th Earl Ferrers Robert Shirley, 6th Earl Ferrers Robert Shirley, 7th Earl Ferrers Washington Shirley, 8th Earl Ferrers Washington Sewallis Shirley, 9th Earl Ferrers Sewallis Edward Shirley, 10th Earl Ferrers Walter Shirley, 11th Earl Ferrers Robert Walter Shirley, 12th Earl Ferrers Robert Washington Shirley, 13th Earl Ferrers Robert William Saswalo Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers The heir apparent is the present holder's son William Robert Charles Shirley, Viscount Tamworth.

Kidd, Williamson, David. Debrett's Baronetage. New York: St Martin's Press, 1990, Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by Robert Shirley, 7th Earl Ferrers Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by Washington Shirley, 8th Earl Ferrers Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by Washington Sewallis Shirley, 9th Earl Ferrers Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by Walter Knight Shirley, 11th Earl Ferrers

Mike Long (American businessman)

Mike Long is an American businessman, former CEO of several public companies, a founding partner of Sulgrave Partners LLC. He served as the president and chief executive officer of Continuum, an Austin, Texas IT consulting company, from 1991 to 1997, having started with Continuum as a director in 1983. In 1997, Long was named CEO of Healtheon Corporation. Long oversaw Healtheon's initial public offering, traveling between Europe and the United States to woo investors. Long was able to secure the required investment funds, saw Healtheon's stock price rise from $8 to a high of $120. In 2002, Long was recruited to fix the financial struggles of Move, Inc. a company plagued by more than $4 billion in lawsuits and hemorrhaging tens of millions of dollars a quarter. As chief executive officer, Long was able to revive Homestore, Inc. by changing the business model, rebranding the company as Move, Inc. and returning it to profitability. Touching on his experience of bringing about the initial public offerings of web-based businesses, Long would say that investors needed to be presented "with an new face every few months," and that "the only way to run one of these Silicon Valley companies was to forget everything you'd learned outside of Silicon Valley."

Long first gained executive experience at Continuum, a "producer of packaged back-office software for insurance companies." He first served as a director moved on to become CEO. In order to gain a foothold in the American insurance market, Long focused Continuum on foreign markets. According to Long, "We had to become a global company to become an American one." With Continuum finding success overseas as well as in the United States, it was valued at $1.7 billion and sold to Computer Sciences Corp. Long would stay with the newly combined company for one year. After leaving Continuum, Long served for four years as the CEO of WebMD. Long sought to bring to fruition the "dream" of WebMD serving as a network that would link "patients, doctors, insurance companies, pharmacies that would help manage people's health care throughout their lives." Long envisioned cutting $300 billion in waste from the health care industry, but what Long "saw as waste others saw as income." WebMD would meet a lot of resistance from the health care industry, never able to fulfill the vision Long had set out for it.

WebMD exists now as an accessible encyclopedia of health-related information. After his time at WebMD, Long envisioned spending more time with his family. In late 2001 Long was approached with an offer of heading up Homestore.com, a company, dealing with accounting difficulties and had seen its stock price tumble. The company was spending $50 million a quarter. To aid in the task of restructuring Homestore, Long would bring with him executives from WebMD and Continuum to serve as chief financial officer and chief operating officer. With morale at Homestore sinking and other companies luring away top talent, Long acted swiftly to halt the losses. On his first day as CEO, Long spoke before 700 Homestore employees in the parking lot outside the company's California headquarters, he spoke candidly about the difficulties the company had endured, those that were to come. He asked the employees to work with him to reinvigorate the company. Long began his restructuring of Homestore by shedding some of its acquisitions and renegotiating contracts with AOL and Cendant.

With the flexibility of the renegotiated contract terms, Long was able to assemble a group of investors that would steer the company toward profitability, instead of bankruptcy. With Homestore on track, Long decided a re-branding was necessary as the name "Homestore.com" had become "associated with fraud and a plummeting stock." Re-branded as Move, Inc. the company would continue to gain more investors and increase its valuation from $19 million to $787 million. Mike Long now serves as a partner at Sulgrave Partners LLC, a business advisory–consulting firm headquartered in Washington, D. C, he is chairman of NEOS Geosolutions, a held geosciences technology company, chairman of Essence Group Holdings Corporation, a held managed care and health care information technology business that develops and markets tools and technology supportive of more accountable, patient-centered health care

Sula, Montana

Sula is a census-designated place in Ravalli County, United States. The population was 37 at the 2010 census. Sula is located at 45°50′12″N 113°58′54″W, along U. S. Route 93 in southern Ravalli County, it lies along the East Fork of the Bitterroot River at the west end of Ross' Hole, a wide valley surrounded by mountains. It is 35 miles north along U. S. 93 to Hamilton, the county seat, 58 miles south over Lost Trail Pass to Salmon, Idaho. According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP has a total area of 3.3 square miles, of which 3.3 square miles is land and 0.039 square miles, or 1.09%, is water. This climatic region is typified by large seasonal temperature differences, with warm to hot summers and cold winters. According to the Köppen Climate Classification system, Sula has a humid continental climate, abbreviated "Dfb" on climate maps

Master suppression techniques

The master suppression techniques is a framework articulated in 1945 by the Norwegian psychologist and philosopher Ingjald Nissen. These techniques identified by Nissen are ways to indirectly humiliate opponents. In the late 1970s the framework was popularized by Norwegian social psychologist Berit Ås, who reduced Nissen's original nine means to five, claimed this was a technique used in the workplace by men against women. Master suppression techniques are defined as strategies of social manipulation by which a dominant group maintains such a position in a hierarchy, they are prominent in Scandinavian scholarly and public debate, where the expression is used to refer to types of social manipulation not part of Ås's framework. Master suppression techniques are sometimes called domination techniques. To silence or otherwise marginalize persons in opposition by ignoring them. Examples: Another speaker takes something you have said as if it were their idea, or starts speaking despite it being your turn.

As it is your turn to speak, the other attendees start to talk to each other, browse through their papers, etc. In a manipulative way to portray the arguments of, or their opponents themselves, in a ridiculing fashion. Example: Another speaker laughs at your accent and compares you to a character in a humorous TV show; when making an accusation of wrongdoing against someone, you are being told that you look cute when you're angry. To exclude a person from the decision making process, or knowingly not forwarding information so as to make the person less able to make an informed choice. Examples: Your colleagues have a meeting that concerns you, without inviting you. Decisions are made not in a conference where everyone is present, but at a dinner party in the evening, where only some attendants have been invited. To punish or otherwise belittle the actions of a person, regardless of how they act. Examples: When you do your work tasks you receive complaints for being too slow; when you do them efficiently, you're critiqued for being sloppy.

To embarrass someone. Example: You inform your manager that you are being slandered, but are told it is your fault since you dress provocatively. Berit Ås has since added two supplementary master suppression techniques. To discuss the appearance of one or several persons in a situation where it is irrelevant. To threaten with or use one's physical strength towards one or several persons. Example: "One more word from you and I'll smash your face!" A group of PhD students at Stockholm University has formulated five counter strategies: Take place Questioning The cards on the table Break the pattern IntellectualiseThey have formulated five confirmation techniques: Visualizing Adherence Inform Double reward Confirm reasonable standardsThe Centre for Gender Equality in Norway has published an article about how to combat this phenomenon. Berit Ås: Master Suppression Techniques

Takin' Back What's Mine

Takin' Back What's Mine was the third single released by Leah Haywood from "Leah" in 2001. Unlike her first two singles, this song takes on a much more angry and dramatic tone where it deals about a girl reclaiming everything she physically owns after breaking up with her boyfriend; the single took a departure from her previous two where her image was moulded to be more "Britney-esque" by singing more angsty pop songs with a touch of rock. It was released nearly 6 months after her second single, "Crazy", had first charted while she was still writing and recording for her debut album; the song has been featured a few times in the Australian soap drama Neighbours just like her debut single "We Think It's Love" and is one of the tracks featured on the CD portion of Neighbours: The Music. The single peaked at # 18 on the Australian ARIA Singles Chart, it fared better than her previous single did by becoming a top 20 hit and staying in the top 50 for 8 weeks. A non-album track "Anytime" was included on the single in addition to an alternate recording of an acoustic version of "We Think It's Love".

The single was part of the Sony Hitz music campaign containing a bonus sticker sheet featuring Leah and other artists on the label. The music video for Takin' Back What's Mine was directed by Mark Hartley featuring a girl dressed in black and wearing a black mask entering her ex-boyfriend's house to steal his belongings. Leah is featured throughout the video standing on the stairs wearing a black sleeveless top and navy blue jeans and alternating with a white top when she sings on the balcony and on top of the stairs, she is accompanied with four female dancers dressed in black catsuits and a mask similar to the main girl in the story. Towards the end of the video, there are shots the girl taking some of the items sung in the song such as "the goldfish" and "the dog" before she gets in a car and drives off with all of the stolen items. There are two edits to a censored version and an uncensored version; the censored version used panning shots of Leah on top of the stairs during the bridge of the song while the uncensored version showed footages of the girl in the story beating up her ex-boyfriend with karate moves and spoofing a shot of the matrix kick.

Due to the violent nature of this scene, Video Hits would always air the censored version because of its family friendly time slot while rage always aired the uncensored version. "Takin' Back What's Mine" came as a three-track single. "Takin' Back What's Mine". "Anytime". We Think It's Love" this version is different from the one on the "Crazy" single "Takin' Back What's Mine" debuted and peaked at #18