In 2013 the Prato Conference is being jointly organised by CIRN, the Center for Information as Evidence, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and the Centre for Organisational and Social Informatics at Monash University. It will explore the rich synergy of experiences and viewpoints amongst Community Informatics and Community Archives researchers.

Dear Mark Aldiss,

Please excuse any cross posting.

I am contacting you because you have been a participant at Prato in the past
or registered your interest.  Youyou may be interested in participating in the
10th! conference.


You can now register your submission (refereed, non-referred PhD, workshop,
posters) via the database  @ conftool.com/prato2013. For more information
about the conference location, travel, and costs, see
http://cirn.wikispaces.com/Conference+Call+2013

Please also forward this email.

In 2013 the Prato Conference is being jointly organised by CIRN, the  Center
for Information as Evidence, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and
the Centre for Organisational and Social Informatics at Monash University. It
will explore the rich synergy of experiences and viewpoints amongst Community
Informatics and Community Archives researchers.

Community Informatics is primarily concerned with improving the wellbeing of
people and their communities, through more effective use of ICTs. Community
Informatics foregrounds social change and transformative action in emergent
social-technical relationships rather than prediction and control. This
orientation also has much in common with Development Informatics.

Community-centric archival research, education and practice are concerned with
empowering communities in support of such desirable objectives as democracy,
human and civil rights, self-determination, sustainable development, and
social inclusion. Recordkeeping and archiving are fundamental infrastructural
components supporting community information, self-knowledge and memory needs,
thus contributing to resilient communities and cultures.

The 2012 Prato Conference was the first time that people from Community
Informatics and Community Archives came together. Much of the research that CI
people were reporting was of great interest to archivists because it addressed
memory and identity infrastructures and how technologies can support them. New
approaches to archival research, education and practice that support
community-based scholarship provide an alternative lens for looking at
Community Informatics research, education and practice. Community Informatics
researchers gained new insights into the characteristics, motivations and
interests of diverse, often underrepresented communities.

 2012 Conference participants identified a strong nexus between the two areas
of research in which closer interaction could result in significant support
for each other’s activity. There also appears to be a strong alignment in
values around the principles of There also appears to be a strong alignment in
values around the principles of transformative research, social justice, and
giving voices to those who currently lack a voice.

 Some topics to consider for conference papers, and presentations or special
workshops.


    How can Community Informatics and Community Archives inform each other?
    How might such cross-fertilization or convergence (professional,
practical, conceptual) be encouraged?
    The dark side of community activity; dealing with suspicion, trauma,
failure or hostility and their legacies.
    How do we use and tell stories ethically and effectively?
    Addressing incommensurability in community-based research.
    Community-aware management, storage and ownership of community data and
technology.
    Participatory methodologies in Community Informatics and Community
Archives research
    The relationship of other frameworks such as Citizenship Journalism or
Community-based research to Community Informatics and Community Archives
    Working with the hard end of the Information Sciences.


Other Papers and Presentations

 We also welcome papers (refereed, non-referred, works in progress) in any
other area of Community Informatics, Development Informatics, Community
Archives and related disciplines. We embrace interdisciplinarity, and Prato is
the ideal place to share ideas!

PhD colloquium

 We also encourage PhD students in any of these disciplines to participate in
the PhD symposium. Many students have gained much from participation in this
activity.

Keynotes

Anne Gilliland, UCLA--from the perspective of community archives. Anne is
Professor, Information Studies and Moving Image Archive Studies, Director,
Center for Information as Evidence At UCLA.
Steve Thompson, University of Teesside--from the perspective of community
informatics.  Steve is a musician, composer, multimedia artist, technologist,
educator and academic.

Dates and Processes

 In order to enhance the quality of papers in all streams, Program Chairs will
take an active role in guiding papers through the  review process and
deadlines will be adhered to.

 The following kinds of papers are sought:

    Full papers for blind peer review by at least 2 reviewers (up to 6000
words).
    Works in progress and more speculative pieces (reviewed and selected, but
not peer reviewed)
    Non refereed papers, including practitioner reports (up to 6000 words).
    PhD papers which provide an outline of current or proposed PhD research
(between 2-3000 words, including references).
    Proposals for workshops or panel discussions.
    Proposals for posters.


 Conference papers for all categories MUST use the conference format  at

You can only submit abstracts and proposals via the conference database @
conftool.com/prato2013


    Call for papers & proposals. Expressions of interest conference website.
Abstracts/papers can only be submitted through the conference database which
will be made available. Submit the abstract in the online form, not as an
attachment. Abstracts up to 550 words.    Please submit by May 15 to avoid
disappointment.
    Acceptance/modification/ rejection notices    As soon as possible
thereafter
    Full papers and abstracts for all streams due    1 July 2013.  The
conference format can be accessed  @
http://cirn.wikispaces.com/file/view/Prato2013.doc .
    Referee reports to participants by    1 September 2013
    Final version of papers, based on peer review and program committee
decisions due    1 October September 2013
    Conference proceedings    Online
    Registrations    Available from 1 July
    Post-conference ½ day workshop    October 31 October 2013 (more
information will be posted).



Conference Chairs (partial)

    Sue McKemmish, Monash University
    Anne Gilliland, UCLA
    Tom Denison, Monash University
    Aldo de Moor, CommunitySense, Netherlands
    Larry Stillman, Monash University
    Nicola Strizzolo, Univ. of Udine, Italy

Committee (partial)

    Patricia Arnold, Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany
    Fiorella de Cindio, University of Milan, Italy
    Mike Arnold, University of Melbourne, Australia
    Ann Bishop, Univ. of Illinois, USA
    Gunilla Bradley, Royal Institute of Tech., Sweden
    Peter Day, University of Brighton, UK
    Wallace Chigona, Univ. of Cape Town, South Africa
    Barbara Craig, Victoria Univ. of Wellington, NZ
    Aldo de Moor, CommunitySense, Netherlands
    Vesna Dolnicar, University of Lubljana, Slovenia
    Alison Elliot, University of Sydney, Australia
    Manuela Farinosi, University of Udine, Italy
    Leopoldina Fortunati, University of Udine, Italy
    Ricardo Gomez, University of Washington, Seattle
    Marlien Herselman, Meraka Institute, CSIR, South Africa
    Sarai Lastra, Turabo Univ., Puerto Rico
    Mike Martin, University of Newcastle, UK
    TJ McDonald, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
    William McIver, Jr, National Research Council Canada
    Mauro Sarrica, La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
    Douglas Schuler, The Public Sphere Project, The Evergreen State College,
USA
    Eduardo Villanueva Mansilla, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
    Steve Thompson, Teesside University, UK
    Will Tibben, University of Wollongong, Australia
    Janet Toland, Victoria University of Wellington, NZ
    Emiliano Trere,Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, México
    Gilson Schwartz, Univ. São Paulo, Brazil
    Andy Williamson, Future Digital, UK
    Martin Wolske, University of Illinois, USA


Conference Organisation


    Larry Stillman, Monash University, Australia
    Amalia Sabiescu, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Switzerland
    Nemanja Memarovic, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Switzerland

--
Prato CIRN Community Informatics Conference 2013
https://www.conftool.net/prato2013/
http://cirn.wikispaces.com/Conference+Call+2013

Looks like channel 10 have an exclusive load of malicious BS to shovel into the Australian publics collective faces tomorrow on Schapelle Corby

*********** shared People For Schapelle Corby's photo.Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 03:28 · 

Looks like channel 10 have an exclusive load of malicious BS to shovel into the Australian publics collective faces tomorrow on Schapelle Corby

Schapelle Corby has been gagged. She is unable to talk, to give any form of media interview, to expose the truth about her case. If she does, she will be imprisoned again. If her sister Mercedes speaks, again they will imprison Schapelle.
Renae Lawrence is a member of the Bali Nine. She was caught smuggling heroin, when 2.689 kg was discovered strapped to her legs and chest, concealed underneath her clothing. During her time in Kerobokan, she NEVER shared a cell with Schapelle Corby, despite Channel Ten's advertising, which falsely described her as a "cell-mate".
Lawrence began the interview by denying that she, and Schapelle, were enemies. She denied she had anything against her, even, ludicrously, suggesting friendship.
"She did a good job on keeping her secrets and she let one slip one night I'm not sure why she told me but there was another female prisoner in the block as well and she said that she knew that the marijuana was in the body bag but the person that was supposed to be at the airport at that time and didn’t show up for work or couldn’t be there for some strange reason I don’t know I'm not sure so she got caught by somebody else and that’s how she got caught with it"
Channel Ten intends to embellish this as much as it possibly can, with other unsubstantiated fabrications, grainy footage, and dramatic background music. It will use every dirty trick in the book to make this appear to be credible.
www.expendable.tv

On Monday the gutter media will launch another malicious assault on Schapelle Corby, fully exploiting the fact that she and her family have had the human rightto free speech taken away from them: that they are gagged, under threat of imprisonment, and cannot comment on anything.

Incredibly, Australia's Channel Ten will put lies into Schapelle's mouth, courtesy of: a paid prisoner, who was recently moved for plotting the murder of prison guards. They will further draw a veil over the truth, a truth the establishment is so desperate to hide.

However, The Expendable Project is able to expose what is in this squalid production, prior to broadcast:

CHANNEL TEN’S SMEAR BROADCAST EXPOSED

As if this wasn't shocking enough, an Australian television network, Channel Ten, has paid a reported $30,000 to another prisoner, to spin a web of lies against her.

These happen to be the exact words the authorities would want to be put before the public. Self gratifying, abusive of Schapelle, and damaging, fully exploiting the fact that Schapelle Corby and her family cannot defend themselves: defend themselves against any lies and vitriol the media chose to promote.

Let's have a look at what Channel Ten intends to spin, and who it intends to spin it through.

RENAE LAWRENCE

In terms of her character, News Ltd recently stated that: "Some sources claim that Lawrence was not shy of standing over and intimidating prisoners, especially the new arrivals, and demanding money. Others paint a picture of a bully, who would turn on anyone she didn’t like..."

Schapelle naturally steered well clear of her. She was scared of her. One day Schapelle will be able to explain for herself why she was so frightened of her. She will be able to recount her own direct painful and harrowing experiences.

In October 2013, Lawrence was accused of plotting to murder a Bali jail guard and was moved out of Kerobokan Jail. The jail's governor, Gusti Ngurah Wiratna, told the AAP: "She was discovered to be plotting the murder of two female guards". He also stated: "At first she denied it, but after we showed her the evidence in her phone, she couldn't deny it."

This is the person which TEN intends to use, to broadcast lies and fabrications at the expense of Schapelle Corby, who isn't allowed to speak to anyone. Does it come any lower?

CHANNEL TEN’S FABRICATING BROADCAST

Then she delivered exactly what Channel Ten required:

Is that worth $30,000?

She gave more value, with more malice and lies, by next claiming that Schapelle's mental illness was faked, and that it was an act.

The issue here isn't just that Channel Ten intends to broadcast this, as though credible. It is that in doing so, they undermine all the physicians who have diagnosed her, all those who have helped her through her psychosis, all the people who have assisted to medicate her, and those who now struggle to help her to recover and to withdraw from the strong medication.

Let's also not forget that, amongst others, Schapelle Corby was diagnosed by one of Australia's most eminent psychiatrists, Dr Jonathan Phillips, a former president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Yet here, Channel Ten, through the mouth of a heroin smuggler, Renae Lawrence, appear to cast doubt upon his professional competence.

But she continues.

After telling the interviewer that Schapelle should apologize and be quiet, she then emboldened and presented the claim, without a shred of evidence of course, that Schapelle said she had smuggled drugs three times. Cue production trick.

She then, again, demanded that Schapelle should stay silent.

She ended by spinning another self-interest political broadcast regarding Indonesia, and how well she has been treated there.

NETWORK TEN

In doing so, no doubt it has benefited from the expertise of Peter Meakin. Meakin was head of news and current affairs at a rival network, when similar lies were broadcast against Mercedes Corby, who proved them to be false via a defamation case. He was humiliated, but now returns to the scene as director of Channel Ten’s news and current affairs.

This is a network which has sunk beneath the gutter and into the sewer of Australian journalism. Paying for lies is bad enough in any situation, but using a prisoner a third world country to deliver them is sheer repugnance.

To target a woman, Schapelle Corby, whose human right to free speech has been revoked, and who has to sit and bear the deluge of gutter abuse without response, is truly revolting.

Let us not forget the crude censorship: the refusal to report the hundreds of government cables and items of correspondence, published by The Expendable Project, which prove Schapelle Corby to be innocent, and politicians and the AFP to be culpable.

This is not reported, ever. It is replaced with the sort of foul manufactured smears and lies which Channel Ten is about to inflict upon the public.

The executives of Network Ten are well aware of the information cache. They know what it reveals. They know what the implications of it are. Yet the same cowardly individuals have sanctioned this despicable low in broadcasting history.

They have approved unmitigated propaganda, transparent to the intelligent mind, but consumed by too many as the truth. They have exploited a free hit, an abused, maligned and silenced victim, to spin malicious fiction without even a hint of morality or decency.

The truth, however, has special properties. It won’t disappear. One day, it will be exposed, and when it is, all those who have sold integrity and honour for profit and vendetta will also be exposed. All those responsible at Channel Ten can count on it.

The Hidden Truth

Occupy London Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 08:50 · Michael Meacher- MP - A million people have been sanctioned and deprived of benefit in the last year

Occupy London

Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 08:50 · 

Michael Meacher- MP

A million people have been sanctioned and deprived of benefit in the last year
April 1st, 2014

The scandal of wrongly sanctioning people and depriving them of all benefit for either 4 weeks, 13 weeks or (almost unbelievably) 156 weeks for trivial, ill-considered or utterly unjustified reasons is too little understood by the general public. I will quote a few examples from my own constituency experience or from Citizens Advice across the country:

* A man had his JSA sanctioned because he had not attended a 2-day training session with a back-to-work scheme provider. The man insisted he had attended on both days, and the training provider had confirmed that.

* A security guard at a Job Centre turned away a man with learning disabilities who had arrived 20 minutes early to sign on. He then returned 2 minutes late to sign on and had his JSA sanctioned for 4 weeks.

* A man was sanctioned for 4 weeks because he missed an appointment with his back-to-work scheme provider. He hadn’t known about the appointment because the letter had been sent to an address he left over a year before. JCP were aware of his current address.

* A woman claiming ESA had been diagnosed with cervical cancer and had given the back-to-work scheme provider a list of her hospital appointments. She was sanctioned for failing to attend an appointment on the middle day of a 3-day hospital stay. The woman had 2 daughters and her ESA was reduced to £28 a week. She asked for reconsideration, but had heard nothing 5 weeks later.

* A woman was sanctioned for 4 weeks for failing to attend provider-led training when the receptionist had rung to tell her not to come in because the trainer was ill. She was subsequently told that she should have attended to sign the attendance register.

* A woman whose ESA was sanctioned had her benefit reduced from £195 to less than £50 per fortnight because she missed a back-to-work scheme appointment due to illness. Her sister had rung 2 days beforehand to say she couldn’t attend, and arranged another date which she did attend.

* An epileptic man had his JSA sanctioned for 4 weeks because he did not attend a back-to-work scheme meeting because his 2-year old daughter had been taken ill and he was her sole carer that day. He rang the provider in advance, but was told this would still have to be noted as ‘did not attend’. During the 4-week sanction he suffered hunger, hardship, stress and an increase in epileptic attacks, but he was not told about hardship payments or food banks or how to appeal the sanction decision.

* A man in Yorkshire & Humber was sanctioned for allegedly failing to attend back-to-work scheme events. He had in fact attended, and the provider had no record of any failures. His hardship request was not processed, his HB was stopped, and he fell into rent arrears and had no money for food, gas or electricity.

Nor are these isolated examples. After the Tory government tightened the rules at the end of 2012, 875,000 persons were sanctioned in the following year including 305,000 who lost benefit for 3 months and 73,000 who were deprived of benefit for 3 years!