Story about Haitians eating cats was third or fourth hand and unsubstantiated

Note: see update at end of article. The Daily Mail tells us that Erika Lee is the person who posted information/rumours about Haitian migrants in Springfield Ohio killing and eating cats. But she got the information according to this paper through a neighbour who told her daughter about the rumour. The neighbour's name is Kimberly Newton. Kimberly Newton heard the rumour through a friend. And her friend heard the rumour from the alleged cat owner!

So I make that three stages through which the story passed i.e. through three different people, may be four if you count her daughter.

It's the kind of rumour that carries zero weight in terms of evidence in a court. It's third or fourth hand, a rumour or anecdote, there's no first hand evidence here. It's just highly speculative and Erika Lee regrets what happened.

She has posted to Facebook about this and about how the evidence is so weak that it has to be ignored.

Lee's initial Facebook post sparked panic across social media after screenshots were circulated around X in which she warned Haitian migrants were hanging cats from a branch like you do a deer for butchering.

And she went on to talk about dogs suffering the same fate and ducks and geese. And she said that people should keep a close eye on their animals.

As the entire world now knows, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance picked up on this and made complete fools of themselves with Trump raising it during that critical debate with Kamala Harris. Since then both Trump and Vance have tried to row back from that egg-on-the-face moment.

But Vance has dug a bigger hole for himself by saying that all along he spewed out the story to make a point about illegal immigrants and the reason for their existence in America namely Kamala Harris's policies. But that ridiculous claim has also backfired because it looks transparently fictitious. He's making it up as he goes along.

But this post is about one thing: the fourth hand rumour mill which ended up a hard fact in Trump's mind much to his ultimate chagrin.

'It just exploded into something I didn't mean to happen,' Erika Lee told NBC News.

Update 18-9-2024:  Huff Post reports the following:

An Ohio woman whose police report was used to power racist rumors about Haitian immigrants stealing and eating neighborhood cats has admitted her pet was found in her home, just days after she reported her Haitian neighbors to local police.

It appears that the cat owner is Anna Kilgore who filed the report but who she "told the paper that her pet, Miss Sassy, was found in her basement days after she contacted the police."

There you go. Another nail in the coffin of this silly story and another dollop of egg on Donald Trump's face. 😎

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

UK woman jailed for 15 months for a Facebook comment

NEWS AND OPINION: A woman, Julie Sweeney, 53, with no previous criminal record whatsoever, has been jailed for 15 months by (in my opinion) a reactionary establishment judge because she made a comment on Facebook which she said was encouraged by other similar comments that a mosque should be blown up. Obviously the comment was totally unacceptable, racist and quite horrible but the question is whether jailing her for 15 months was proportionate and appropriate and I think it is.

Photo: AP.

The exact comment she made is:  "Don't protect the mosques, blow the mosque up with the adults in it."

She made the comment on Facebook during the recent riots/protests which were a reaction to the killing of young girls in a playground by a 17-year-old Somali teenager who was born in the country (UK - Wales) but social media said that he was an immigrant seeking refugee status.

Yes there are lies all over the Internet about it on social media which helped to fire up the protesters many of whom have now been jailed, some for three years and more.

She pleaded guilty to sending a communication to convey a threat of death or serious harm.

There was a determined effort by the establishment encouraged by the Labour government to squash these protesters and send a clear message to others not to protest or riot.

But this woman I think has been unjustly treated. But the judge, Judge Steven Everett, heavily criticised her in court saying that her comments were inflammatory and disgusting. In addressing her, he said: "You should have been looking at the news and media with horror like every right-minded person. Instead, you chose to take part in stirring up hatred."

Fair enough, she should have been punished for this comment. It was horrific and wrong. She admits she was stupid. She was part of a Facebook channel of which there were 5,100 members. There was quite a big audience to a comment which exacerbated her crime. The judge called her a "keyboard warrior". He said that she had to learn to take responsibility for the her language.

But it was a single comment on a single day and normally she lives a quiet sheltered life in Cheshire and has not troubled the courts in her long life according to the barrister defending her in court.

The question here is about freedom of speech. The Labour government has decided to crack down on these protesters but at the same time they are curbing freedom of speech. The government wants their version of freedom of speech. They will allow certain types of speech and disallow others. According to Frank Furedi in The Times newspaper, in a comment, "It seems the government and its allies in the media and various cultural institutions have declared a war on free speech."

I agree with that. The government is trying to strengthen the current legislation to tighten freedom of speech and to restrict "legal but harmful content". Unfortunately this phrase is subjective and political.

Frank said that "A government that claims a monopoly on determining what is truth and what isn't is a far greater threat to Britain's public life than the targets of its censorship." 

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Screams from mother and daughter as carpet python attacks their cat

It seems that the carpet python is a relatively small python, a snake which kills their prey by wrapping themselves around it and squeezing the life out of them. Nonetheless, this was a terrifying and shocking moment for mother and daughter living on the Sunshine Coast, Australia.

I guess, in Australia, as is the case in America, but is not the case in the UK, you have to watch out for predators of domestic cats. It's another aspect of cat caregiving.

Screenshot from Facebook video.

The video on this page is on Facebook. It's from a snake catcher who was called in by the mother. However, by the time he arrived, it seems that she had removed the snake from her cat and the snake had retired to a quiet corner of her property under the barbecue. I don't think the snake presented a particularly difficult problem for Mr McKenzie, the snake catcher.

Although he remarked that it was a crazy situation and the video is one of the most insane that you will see which indicates that this was a rare event so cat owners living in Australia shouldn't be overly concerned but vigilant.

'This is one of the most spine-tingling crazy videos you will ever see.'

Below are some more facts about the carpet python which may interest you.

From Sunshine Snake Catchers 24/7:

"This afternoon Stu attended a job in Buderim where a large Carpet Python grabbed the pet cat out in the family courtyard! The mum and daughter were able to get the snake off the cat safely and call us to come and relocate it! Some of the footage (and screams) were caught on the security camera out the back! Unbelievable!

Some facts about the carpet python

Let’s explore some fascinating facts about the Carpet Python (Morelia spilota), a remarkable snake species:

1. Appearance:

   • Carpet pythons exhibit highly variable colouring, ranging from olive to black, adorned with white, cream, and gold markings.
   • Their patterns can be roughly diamond-shaped or intricate bands on a background of grey or brown.
   • The triangular head features a conspicuous row of thermo-receptive labial pits.
   • Males are typically smaller than females, with some regions having females up to four times heavier.
   • Adult Length: Carpet pythons can grow to be five to eight feet in length. However, some individuals may exceed this range, reaching up to 12 feet when fully grown.
     
     Distribution and Habitat:
2. • Found throughout mainland Australia (except the arid centre and western regions), Indonesia (southern Western New Guinea), Papua New Guinea, and Yule Island.
   • Inhabit diverse environments, including rainforests, woodlands, arid islands, and temperate grasslands.
   • Often found near human habitation.

3. Lifestyle and Behaviour:

   • Semi-arboreal: They climb trees but can move on the ground.
   • Nocturnal: Active during the night, but they may bask in the sun during the day.
   • Shelter: Seek refuge in hollow tree limbs, rock crevices, and abandoned burrows.
   • Predator: Carpet pythons are skilled ambush predators.
   • Non-venomous: They kill prey through constriction, coiling around it until it suffocates.

4. Diet and Prey:

   • Carpet pythons feed on a variety of prey:
     • Small Mammals: Rats and other rodents.
     • Birds: They can capture birds in their habitat.
     • Lizards: A significant part of their diet.
     • Incidents: There have been reports of carpet pythons devouring domestic cats and small dogs.

5. Conservation and Threats:

   • Habitat Destruction: Loss of suitable hiding places affects their ability to hunt and shelter.
   • Road Kill: Collisions with vehicles.
   • Pet Trade: Some are kept as pets.
   • Predation: Feral cats and foxes pose a threat.

Remember, these snakes play a crucial role in maintaining ecological balance, and their unique adaptations make them captivating creatures in the wild! 🐍🌿

Sources: Reptiles Cove, Animalia bio, Wikipedia and more.

How do they catch birds as prey?

Carpet pythons employ a combination of stealth, patience, and ambush tactics to catch birds as prey. Here’s how they do it:

1. Camouflage and Ambush:

   • Carpet pythons blend seamlessly into their surroundings due to their intricate patterns and colors.
   • They often lie in wait on tree branches, rocks, or other elevated positions, where they remain motionless for extended periods.
   • When a bird approaches, the python strikes with lightning speed, coiling around its prey.

2. Striking Technique:

   • The python’s strike is precise and well-timed.
   • It lunges forward, extending its body to grab the bird.
   • Its sharp teeth sink into the bird’s flesh, securing a firm grip.

3. Constriction:

   • Once caught, the python wraps its body around the bird.
   • It constricts, squeezing the life out of its prey.
   • The bird’s ability to breathe is compromised, leading to suffocation.

4. Swallowing Whole:

   • After successful capture, the python begins the process of swallowing the bird whole.
   • Their flexible jaws allow them to accommodate prey much larger than their head.
   • The bird is gradually ingested, headfirst.

5. Digestion:

   • Carpet pythons have a slow metabolism.
   • They can survive on infrequent meals.
   • The digestive process takes several days, during which the python remains relatively inactive.

In summary, carpet pythons are patient hunters, relying on their cryptic appearance and ambush skills to capture birds as part of their diet. 🐍🦜

Sources: 

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Facebook removed 690 million fake accounts between October and December 2023

By their own admission, Meta, the owners of Facebook say they 'actioned' (believed to mean removed) 690 million fake accounts that were started between October and December 2023. Ninety-nine percent of them were discovered before they had been reported.

Note: Always be cautious when using Facebook and Instagram. Think the worst and proceed from that starting point. Too many scammers. Never send money upfront. Never.

Their response with this information was to the revelation that Meta is failing to do enough for 'romance fraud' victims. The Times report that there has been a 29% rise in the number of scams against victims who believed that they were communicating with an attractive man (or the other way around but less likely) when in fact they were communicating with a scammer who was using the image of a man who had no idea that his image was being used in this way.

Dr Christian Boving is used by love scammers to extract money from unsuspecting women looking for love. He is gay. He knows about the problem and has reported it to Meta, Facebook's owner but nothing happened. Image: The Times newspaper.

As an example, The Times reports on the picture of a Danish hunk of a doctor (who by the way is gay), Dr. Christian Boving, that has been used multiple times by scammers to develop relationships online through Facebook with unsuspecting women with the intention of, when the time is right, scamming the women out of thousands of pounds.

One such woman is Lauren McEwan, living in Missouri, USA. She was attracted to Dr. Christian Boving's face. But she was communicating with somebody else. These scams are called "authorised push payment frauds". The customers are tricked into paying money to an account controlled by a criminal. And Meta is facilitating these crimes it is alleged.

McEwan said that her experience hurt. She said that: "It did hurt. It was a real let down. It took me a couple of weeks to come to terms with it."

The report says that she is one of several new victims to have chosen to speak out about their experiences with Boving impersonators.

The accusation against Meta is that they have failed to clamp down on fake accounts using this doctor's appearance.

His face has appeared on various social media websites as part of scams and dating apps but the problem is particularly bad for Facebook. The doctor has accused Meta of continuously failing to delete the fakes. He wants more stringent verification to prevent the scam accounts being created.

Fraudsters began to use his picture 10 years ago. But the number of fake accounts have surged in recent years. He is speaking out against the problem to try and stop it. Victims have been alerted but many of these fake profiles remain online. He has lost hope and thinks that it will never stop.

He emailed Meta with a long list of fake profiles. He said that they weren't removed after he reported them. The Times newspaper also sent the list to Meta and some of the profiles have remained active. They had a partial success I guess because of their increased clout. But it is remarkable that Meta are still slow and reluctant to deal with these problems.

These are romance scam operations. Sometimes the women (it is usually women I guess) realise that there's something strange going on but they enjoy the admiration and the kind words. Sometimes when it's been proved unequivocally to the victim that they are being scammed they still refuse to accept it remarkably.

Meta says that accounts impersonating someone else are against their rules. They said that they have removed a number of accounts reported to them and continue to investigate. They don't allow fraudulent activity and they work with law enforcement to prevent the scammers using their platforms.

And, they admit that between October and December last year they took action on more than 690 million fake accounts on Facebook. Amazing. It gives the impression that Facebook is plagued, swamped, drowning in fake accounts.

Meta encourage people to report what they believe to be scamming accounts by using its in-app tools.

Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg was a British politician until he joined Facebook on a $15 million a year salary a few years ago! Also in The Times there's an article about him, describing him as the Machiavelli of Meta. They ask whether he is curbing big tech excesses or enabling them.

The journalist who wrote that article, Tom McTague, writes that, "with [Meta's] platforms a hub for crime, from fraud to child grooming, any claims he is making it more responsible ring hollow." 

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

You have a one-in-three chance of being scammed when buying from Facebook Marketplace

Facebook Marketplace accounts for 73% of all purchase fraud cases at one British bank. TSB, a British bank, claims that more than one third of adverts on Facebook Marketplace are scams and consumers should avoid making purchases on that website.

TSB Bank added that Facebook Marketplace accounted for 73% of all purchase fraud cases and was the biggest driver of fraud by volume, as reported by The Times today Thursday, January 18, 2024.

Comment: I am flabbergasted because this is a very high percentage. I've just visited Facebook Marketplace to have a look at it for the first time and it looks perfectly normal with lots of free items by the way. Scams?

TSB Bank also calculated that £60 million ($76m) might have been lost by customers from all the banks using Marketplace in 2023. This would equate to £160,000 scammed every day on this Facebook platform.

The fraud spokesman at TSB, Matt Hepburn said: 

"You wouldn't shop at a supermarket if a third of the items were stale or counterfeit, so the same should apply to Facebook Marketplace, where you have a one-in-three chance of being scammed when paying online. Social media companies must act on their commitments under the Online Fraud Charter by urgently clearing up their platforms. Removing scam adverts is a good first test."

A TSB fraud team tested Facebook Marketplace. They contacted the sellers and concluded that 34% of the listings were fraudulent.

These allegedly fraudulent sellers used tactics such as:

• directing the buyer to fake websites and
• refusing to allow viewings of an item in person and
• demanding fees in advance.

Warning: nobody under any circumstances should send money in advance unless you are absolutely sure that the business or person you are dealing with is genuinely bona fide i.e. is behaving scrupulously and with integrity.

Example: a Ninja Air Fryer for sale on Facebook Marketplace was listed as brand-new at £65. The genuine retail price of the item is £249. Buyers were redirected to a fake website when they clicked on the link to purchase this product.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Meta, parent company of Facebook, have agreed to a new online fraud charter in the UK

Facebook has agreed to introduce measures to stop fraudsters 'selling' on their platform. The new charter will require anyone who is asking for payment to have their details verified by Meta first. And further, the changes will require sellers on Facebook Marketplace to verify their identity and location before they can sell something.

UK police say that Facebook facilitates organised crime because they can sell stolen goods on the platform. There has been a surge and continues to be a surge in shoplifting in the UK. A lot of this is conducted by organised crime and they sell their stolen items on Facebook and other outlets such as eBay.

This will be a voluntary agreement committing tech companies to a new standard of verification and vetting of people who use these social media platforms to sell services and goods.

The only problem that I have is whether the charter will be properly enforced because at the moment Facebook is unable to enforce their policies with many people selling kittens and cats online (my area of expertise) and sometimes fraudulently because they take money without actually providing the animal.

In any case, it is a very bad idea to purchase a kitten or cat online sight unseen from somebody you don't know. It just doesn't work. It's entirely wrong and promotes the bad people who engage in these sorts of scams and dodgy businesses.

It's reported that there are "soaring rates of authorised push payment fraud". This is when a customer is tricked into authorising a payment to an account controlled by a criminal or criminals.

There has been a 29% rise in the number of romance scams. This type of fraud has netted £18.5 million for the criminals involved in the first six months of 2023!

There are some shocking stories about romance fraud on social media. A former police officer was taken in. She handed over her retirement fund of more than £100,000 to a scammer she met on a dating website. He said that he was involved in building apartments in Cyprus. He persuaded her to buy a plot. Can you believe it?

Other scams have netted the criminals £239 million over the first six months of this year. Research indicates that 60% of all reported authorised push payment fraud is connected to Meta. Meta also owns WhatsApp and Instagram.

However, it's nice to read that Mehta has agreed to this online fraud charter in the UK.

In the modern world full of fraud and bad behavior always be vigilant and switched on to scammers trying to steal your money.

Here is an infographic I created earlier which may be useful:

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

NO EVIDENCE that using Facebook is bad for mental health - new study!

A lot of experts have consistently said over a long time that Facebook is addictive and bad for mental health especially for today's youngsters who can spend hours on the site daily. Now The Times reports that:

There is no evidence that the global adoption of Facebook is linked to psychological harm, a study has suggested.

So, you can go back on Facebook (FB) if you ever left it and check out some more funny cat pics or cat rescues! Seriously though I have to doubt this research. Oxford University said that Facebook users may even benefit from the social media site. 

Is this harmful or beneficial? Image in public domain.

The checked-out data from a million people in 72 countries. Facebook's owner, Meta allowed access to user data. But it took 3 years to get the information and write it up!

The researchers said that Meta did not fund the research. This information is intended to tell us that the report is not a Meta PR exercise. But is it?! It might be. Meta wants more research on the wellbeing of users. This study is certainly a boost to Meta's public profile.

Some earlier research found that FB is liked to increased incidences of mental health problems. The new research has been challenged by some campaigners.

The new study said that "evidence for harm is on balance more speculative than conclusive."

The lead author of the new study, Professor Andrew Przybylski, said that earlier studies have been proven to be inaccurate because they focused on the UK and USA over a short timeframe and relied on surveys from people about their social media use.

The professor added that "The best global data does not support the idea that the expansion of social media has a negative global association with wellbeing across nations and different demographics."

The study looked at 2 age brackets: 13-34 and 35-plus for the years 2008-2019.

There was a "small but significant" indication that FB users' wellbeing improved.

A critic, Fances Haugen said that "the study isn't well designed to assess the actual impact of Facebook". She said that people should be cautious about the finding that using FB is beneficial.

Another critic, the Molly Rose Foundation said that "the coroner at Molly's inquest...concluded that the torrent of harmful content that she was algorithmically fed contributed to her death". And "that Meta's own research has long found that Instagram [also owned by FB] has adverse impacts on the health and wellbeing of young people."

What do you think?

Message to Facebook fans and my friends on Facebook about scams

Initial notice: I am not criticising Facebook. I hope that I am helping to protect some users on Facebook and therefore I am helping Facebook. The second point is that Facebook is doing something about the problem that I describe below. So they are active in this area and doing their best to rectify any problems.

Facebook and Instagram blamed for a surge in scams

The Times reports that Facebook (FB) and Instagram have been blamed for a surge in scams as one of Britain's biggest banks has revealed that these Meta's owned sites are the source of the vast majority of their fraud cases.

The bank is TSB and they are the only bank in Britain to guarantee a refund for all scam victims. Their audit revealed that adverts posted on Meta-owned websites i.e. Facebook and Instagram, accounted for 81.1% of all online investment fraud causes experienced by their customers. This is between January 1 and June 21 of this year. Of these 55.7% advertise on Instagram while 25.4% advertise on Facebook.

In contrast, TSB say that no account holders have fallen victim to scam adverts on the Google search engine after they changed their rules in August 2021 to force all advertisers on their website to be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Meta said that they are committed to forcing all advertisers on Facebook and Instagram to be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the same way that Google insists on this.

America has its own financial regulators: Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and the Securities and Exchange Commission. I would expect them to be involved in the same way that the FCA is involved in authorising advertisers on Google in the UK. I hope so.

So the message to Facebook users is to be aware of adverts on FB purporting to be good investments and other such scams. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Don't share information or give out your PIN or password. If you receive an unexpected email don't click on the link. Check your Social Security privacy settings. Choose strong passwords and don't use public Wi-Fi for online shopping or banking.

In the meantime, my thanks to Facebook for being committed to addressing this weakness on their platform. There are people who suggest that Facebook should pay compensation to people who have lost money on these scammy investments.  I'm not suggesting that but in the meantime TSB is having to pay out large sums of money to compensate individuals who have lost chunks of their savings on these scams which are advertised on Meta's platforms.

Postscript: a spokeswoman for Facebook said that the company has dedicated "substantial resources" to tackle the scam adverts. They have a team of 40,000 whose job is to protect their users and they have invested in artificial intelligence to help deal with the problem. The company had joined Stop Scams UK, a cross-industry anti-scam group which includes banks. They donated £3 million to citizens advice to help with anti-scam initiative including a phone line for people who have been scammed.

Family mistakenly donated their cat to a Denver thrift store

The owners of this ginger tabby accidentally donated him to a thrift store in Denver, Colorado, UK. The way it happened is interesting. The cat had hidden inside a recliner chair. No doubt he had made a little nest for himself there. He had probably done it before several times. 

As a side note, it should be added that recliner chairs are dangerous to kittens and puppies and even adult companion animals because they go underneath them and when a person sits on them and reclines,  the mechanism under the chair shifts position and it can crush the animal.

Montequlla inside the recliner inside the thrift store. Photo: the store or Denver Animal Protection.

But that is another issue. In this instance the cat, whose name is Montequlla, was hidden inside the recliner and the family donated the recliner to the thrift store. They did it because they were moving home

They realised that they were missing their cat and had no idea what had happened. In the meantime, the store noticed the cat (meows) and called Denver Animal Protection. They scanned the micro-chip but it had not been updated. Therefore they could not contact the owners.

Jenna Humphreys of Denver Animal Protection, told the Denver Channel: "Sure enough, there's a recliner out front, and there's a little orange tabby stuck inside. Very friendly, couldn't get out. They said that they had noticed the meowing shortly after somebody had dropped it off."

The recliner. Photo: Denver Animal Protection (believed).

In the meantime, the family were frantically searching nearby houses but then realised that he could be inside the store, inside the recliner. They returned to the store. The employees of that store gave them the phone number of Jenna Humphreys at which point they were able to reunite with their cat.

They put the event down to Montequlla being stressed and a bit frightened about the impending move to a new home. Perhaps there was quite a lot of noise and commotion in the home. His home territory was being disrupted quite dramatically. He decided to hide in a place which she had used before.

Humphreys said that "It's not uncommon for us to be call to help remove animals from those situations, but this was a new one."

Good ending 👍. Photo: the husband I expect.

The family are very happy that the story ended well. And they are thankful to everyone involved who managed to arrange the reunion. I bet Montequlla is happy too. Although he now has a move to do. He won't like that. It is going to cause some more problems.

RELATED: 5 tips to make moving home with your cat a success.

There is a Facebook post on the event by the Denver Animal Shelter which is below.

Montequlla's family donated a recliner to the thrift store when they were moving. They didn't realize that their cat was...

Posted by Denver Animal Shelter on Tuesday, January 4, 2022

VIDEO: Cat interrupts a live show on Georgia’s Kavkasia TV

This is a nice reaction from the TV host. He smiles and looks very relaxed about the interruption to his show by a domestic cat who must have been on set behind the camera. It is remarkable that the cat was allowed to wander onto the set. I think it is nice though. It breaks up all that dry, boring news stuff and adds a bit charm to the proceedings. It detunes it and humanises it. Although you couldn't allow it to happen too often otherwise someone would complain that the TV channel was trivialising the news.

Georgia's TV Kavkasia said they don’t know where the came from and the was definitely not part of the show! Yes, I am sure that was the case. 😃 .

شاهد.. #جورجيا.. قطة تقتحم بثاً مباشراً لبرنامج «Kavkasia» عندما قفزت فجأة على المكتب أمام المذيع المصدر: anews #صحيفة_الخليج #الخليج_خمسون_عاماً

Posted by ‎صحيفة الخليج‎ on Saturday, November 20, 2021

Here is a screenshot from the video:

Cat invades TV show and presenter likes it. Screenshot.

21 points about the alleged scam to get people to donate to treat a sick rescue cat

This is a compressed summary in bullet fashion of an alleged scam concerning a community cat who needed expensive med treatment to be paid for via online donations. Scroll down for the bones of the story.

Gogi - alleged but not true. Pic: FB

Alleged fake vet bill. Pic: FB.

1. This is a story about an alleged scam by a 20-year-old woman who gave the impression she lived in Singapore;
2. She called herself Nora Nur;
3. She said that she had rescued a community cat from Punggol, Singapore. She claimed the cat had been abandoned;
4. She had called the cat Gogi;
5. On the Facebook group Sayang Our Singapore's Community Cats she asked for donations, small amounts like $5.10 dollars;
6. She uploaded pictures of the cat and a veterinarian's bill from a real veterinary surgery: Frankel Veterinary Centre;
7. She said the cat needed expensive treatment: 6,000 Singapore dollars for feline infectious peritonitis treatment and 800 Singapore dollars for a hysterectomy;
8. It is quite common for cat rescuers to seek donations on Facebook for veterinary treatment;
9. Allegedly, she was using this fact to get donations from people who are sympathetic towards rescue cat;
10. A member of the above Facebook group, Lee Siew Yian, did some research and decided that her appeal for donations was a scam;
11. They decided that the vet bill was a fake and the photographs of the cat were also faked. The pictures of the cat were taken from other pages on social media and there was no such cat called Gogi in need of expensive veterinary surgery and treatment;
12. The veterinary clinic concerned confirmed that they did not issued the aforesaid bill and neither had they treated a cat with that name;
13. This got back to the police and they investigated;
14. Police officers from Bedok Police Division establish the identity of the 20-year-old woman and arrested her;
15. 60 people had donated to her alleged fake cause;
16. A 25 year-old man is assisting police investigations;
17. Nora Nur changed her story said that the cat and her diseases were real but that the cat lived in Vietnam and not Singapore. She had tried to raise money in Vietnam without success. She therefore had sought funding through the Internet on a Singapore community cat Facebook webpage instead of in Vietnam;
18. Nur has been criticised by people for using animals as part of a scam to get money off people;
19. Nur apologised for what she's done and said that she will give the money back to the people who donated. She insisted that the fundraising operation had indeed occurred in Vietnam and that she had never tried to scam money. She sincerely apologised.
20. Nur and her mother decided to sponsor all of Gogi's medical bills. I take this to mean that between them they will pay the bills;
21. Can anybody trust her bearing in mind what she has done? Is she now telling the truth?

Hi everyone, after talking & talking, I have made a decision. All donors that transferred money to Davis Account...

Posted by Nora Nur on Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Pregnant Australian woman wants rid of her cat because partner is pet-obsessed

NEWS AND VIEWS: A pregnant Australian woman living in New South Wales (I believe) has put her cat up for adoption on Facebook because her partner, she said, is pet-obsessed and she thinks that if the family cat is got rid of he will turn his attentions to her and the new baby. 

 Pregnant Australian woman wants rid of her cat because partner is pet-obsessed. Photo: Pixabay. The photo is for illustrative purposes only.

She has done this in an underhand way because she has not told her partner about getting rid of the family cat. And she says that she won't be able to care for her cat once the baby arrives. Note: she might be alluding to the difficulty some women have in believing that cats do not present a problem to pregnant women because of the possible transmission of toxoplasmosis, provided they take care. I think she's referring to that but it is not mentioned in the story.

SEE A NUMBER OF ARTICLES ON THE HUMAN-TO-HUMAN RELATIONSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF CAT OWNERSHIP

She said that she wants to focus on her baby and herself and that she knows someone can take care of her cat after the birth of her baby. She said that she is exhausted by the fact that her partner won't "let our cat go". She said that her partner thinks that their cat is his "first child....And he's literally obsessed with the cat, like a cat daddy."

As a consequence she said that she feels sorry for their baby already but believes that he will change and take care of the baby when it is born. She still believes though that things would be much easier if he let the cat go by which she means relinquish or give up the cat to somebody permanently.

She said that she does not want to be mean and throw the cat away which is why she is looking for somebody on social media to take the cat off her hands. Unsurprisingly, Facebook users are unimpressed. They feel that the woman's behaviour is absurd and one commenter suggested that her partner should leave her. They rightly said that companion cats are part of the family. They should not be 'thrown away'. Note: the cat is not being thrown away, strictly speaking, but I take the point.

Another was astonished that she was giving the cat away without her partner knowing. They were baffled as to why she would feel overburdened looking after a cat once the baby had arrived. Comment: I'm not sure she is actually referring to the workload. I think it is more to do with toxoplasmosis and that unfounded fear plus a desire to force her partner to pay attention to her and her baby. I think it is more to do with attention-seeking.

Despite the social media criticism by some she has doubled-down and said: "I've tried my best and I am frustrated as there is no other option but rehoming our pet."

Comment: she is determined to get rid of the family cat and no amount of sensible argument will force her to change her mind.

P.S. I think she might be violation of Facebook policies but I am not sure.

Facebook rules on not selling animals are being ignored

Facebook knows that they need to do more to stop the sale of animals on their website. This is a perpetually difficult topic for Facebook administrators it seems to me. They have similar problems in trying to stop pictures of animal abuse.

FB policy on selling animals. It is banned but abused. Screenshot. It took me a while to find this FB page.

NOTE TO FACEBOOK: PLEASE DON'T PUNISH ME FOR HIGHLIGHTING THIS PROBLEM AT 21ST FEB 2021. THE REASON FOR THE POST IS TO IMPROVE ANIMAL WELFARE.

The first point I want to make is that it is very difficult to find Facebook's policy on listing animal sales on their website. If you search for the policy on Facebook you can't find it. If you search for their rules or policy using Google search you are more likely to find it. That tells a tale in my opinion.

Several people have asked for information about the rules but the responses are often very thin and weak and unhelpful. I eventually found an answer and I have provided both the rules and a Google search result in screenshots to tell you the kind of problem that Facebook faces.

Yes, Google search throws up many Facebook pages on which they sell animals. In fact is much easier to find Facebook pages where they sell animals than it is to find Facebook's policy on not selling animals! Something is wrong.

Animals for sale of Facebook listed by Google search. Screenshot.

For the sake of clarity, it is irresponsible to sell animals on Facebook and it is irresponsible to buy animals on Facebook. I know it is tempting as it is highly convenient and there are some beautiful animals for sale but you are taking a big risk financially and in terms of the quality animal you are buying. Also the animals themselves at risk of abuse and exploitation. You don't know who is selling them and how they were bred.

You don't know the standard of their welfare. Are the kittens diseased? Are they sick? Do they have any sort of health issue which may leave the buyer with heavy financial expenditure in terms of veterinary bills and emotional distress because once they adopt a kitten they almost immediately become attached to that animal. To see the animal in distress because of illness is distressing to the new owner.

This is an example of the risk you take if you buy online without ticking the normal boxes and applying due diligence to the process. I don't believe you can buy a kitten or cat on impulse at any time. It has to be carried out with great care because this is a lifetime experience that the person is buying into.

The trouble is that people do not consider it a lifetime experience. Some people do but the ones who buy on Facebook often don't. And also in buying on Facebook you are encouraging people to sell on Facebook. You are completing the circle.

I know Facebook don't want this to happen and their rules are clear once you find them but they struggle with enforcing the rules for the simple reason that there are so many users and postings on their website. The numbers are too big to control.

People Begin to Distrust Facebook

A YouGov poll discovered that Facebook is losing its credibility or more precisely local newspapers are three times more trusted for news than social media platforms such as Facebook.

Local newspapers are considered the most credible in terms of providing the news. Obviously it is regional news but local newspapers lead local television and radio and search engines in terms of trustworthiness.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of people trust the information that they read in their local newspaper both online and in print whereas 22% trust local news presented on social media platforms such as Facebook.

It appears that the stories about fake news has made Britons skeptical about the news that they read on Facebook. Fewer than a quarter of people trust social media in contrast to 61% who trust traditional media such as newspapers and television.

This is ironic because both Facebook and Google have taken a large slice of classified revenues relied upon by local and national newspapers. The press is becoming increasingly unsustainable and the UK government is reviewing the situation because closing 200 local papers over the past decade is a threat to democracy.

I hope that this poll helps drive people away from Facebook and back to a more trusted source, the local newspaper. How does this impact the world of cats? Well, there is a lot of cat news on Facebook. A lot of cat welfare happens on Facebook. I get some of my stories from Facebook. We need to be able to trust this dominant social media platform and it appears that currently we are unable to do so.

As an aside, I should say that when I'm writing articles about the domestic cat or wild cat species I ensure that my primary sources are books written by the best authors. In this way I'm able to go to the root source of information rather than relying upon second or third hand information which is often presented on the Internet. We always need to go back to basics.

Facebook becoming unfashionable among younger users

This is hardly about cats but it is, perhaps, indirectly about cats. Internet users appear to be falling out of love with Facebook and Twitter. This may be because the majority of users on Facebook are younger people and they have taken to using new services such as Instagram and Snapchat.

Ofcom, the regulator of telecoms and media in the UK, said that the portion of people who checked their social networks weekly had fallen from 65% a year earlier to 56% in October 2014.

Apparently Facebook and Twitter are also on the wane in the United States and Japan together with China. The rate of decline in those countries is slower than in the UK.

It appears that Facebook has become unfashionable with younger people which indicates that it is more fashionable with older people and with respect to this it may be the case that middle-aged and older cat lovers now spend more time on Facebook than they did on cat websites.

A lot of Websites have a Facebook presence and it is almost as if that the people who would have visited the website now visit Facebook instead. The idea of a website having a large Facebook presence is to promote the website but the danger is that people migrate to Facebook instead.

The way Facebook has dealt with this is is to buy up companies such as Instagram, which appeal to the younger market.

Instagram, which is a photo sharing network, say that they have 300 million users which overtakes the number of Twitter users (284 million).

How Important Are Facebook Likes?

Huge numbers of Facebook likes is no guarantee of getting more visitors to your website. I have seen sites with hundreds of thousands of Facebook (FB) likes and rather average visitor numbers. Conversely I have seen websites with absolutely no connection with FB with good unique visitor numbers. It is much more about how good your site is rather than FB likes. I don't like them because we are far too beholden to the big websites. Let's be more independent and stop leaning on FB.

There was, and still is, an almost manic need to link up with FB because everyone else is and because FB indoctrinated people into believing that you had to put an FB like button on your site.

There is something odd about FB likes as well. On my main site I had 1,500 likes (yes I have a like button on the home page but no where else) yet onvernight, recently, it lost about 150 likes. Weird. Do people unlike your site? And do they do it en masse overnight?

You can't rely on FB to get traffic to your site. Also the more you integrate with FB the more you lose visitors to FB which is exactly what FB wants.

If you have a forum for your site on FB, beware. Anyone can visit it and make critical comments.  You don't have the same control over submissions as you do on your own forum. Also, you are moving customers from your site to FB.

The FB like button has almost become a habit for web designers. You place a series of social media buttons on each page in the hope it spreads the word. I don't think it makes any difference. If it does, it is slight. And of course, it slows up page load times. Page load speed is important these days as Google likes fast loading pages. It is part of the algorithm.

I don't believe anyone has done any proper research into the benefits of the FB like button. If someone did they'd probably conclude what I have written here.

There is another point. People who click on the FB like button are "used" by FB to promote advertised products that are associated with the webpage that they have said they like. FB does this without notifying the person. These people are presented by FB as sponsoring certain products. I find this unsatisfactory at the very least. FB are desperate to make more money.  They want to prove that FB is very commercial and can make good profits to boost the share value that dived after the recent float. FB was overvalued at the time of the float. In fact, it was valued at twice its true value, which is why the share value dived so dramatically. FB are keen to rectify that. They are trying all manner of things to make money and some of the strategies are near the bone.

The FB like button is overvalued. It is a habit that at one time we did not have. We were fine without it. Perhaps we were better off without out. Remember the FB like button is for the benefit of Facebook and its profit margins. It is not a public service.

Google Change Policy Because They Are Scared

Facebook founder, Sergey Brin says, "I am more worried than I have been in the past. It's scary". Google are spooked by the erosion of the early principles of the internet, the most important of which was openness. Rules stifle innovation.  He says that Google would not have been a success if he had started the business today.

Google likes the laissez-faire attitude of the internet. It is like a parallel universe because anything goes, or at least it did. On the ground, in the tangible world, behavior is regulated. It is regulated because on-the-ground-society is more advanced. The internet is still young, undeveloped and it is bound to become more regulated because you can't go on in a semi-anarchic manner and get away with it for ever.

I understand the attraction of openness but people will and do abuse it. Think gross violations of copyright as one example. For many years Google ignored this and in doing so supported it as they found, through their search engine, works that were violations of copyright. Only recently have they started to delist from their search results webpages that violate copyright - see application form.

Mr Brin says that there are powerful forces against an open internet. He refers to the battle against music piracy and Apple's rules on the software people can use.

I  think Mr Brin is just concerned about Google profits. And in trying to maintain an advantage Google is doing things in a panic, which undermines the raison d'être of Google; to find the best on the internet.

Mr Brin, you are living dangerously and I think you need to take stock. The introduction of Google Plus One is a failure and was a response to being scared. Go back to basics and do it well and accept change.

The internet must evolve and it must be regulated to a certain extent because humankind needs to be regulated within a general framework of freedom and self determination. It is just the nature of things.

Facebook friendship can be our enemy

Facebook does a great job of connecting people. We know that. It has changed the idea of what socialization means to us.  There are two broad categories of people who use Facebook:

1. People who simply want to socialise and
2. People who want to use Facebook for some purpose. One prominent purpose is to promote a website to enhance the visitor rate.

The upsides of Facebook are obvious. The downsides are not so obvious but include:

1. An addictive necessity to be in the loop so as not to miss something. There is a lot of "needy" activity on the internet. Text messaging is another example. You see young people furiously texting, endlessly seeking reassurance. It is painful to see it. This sort of needy behavior can become burdensome to the participant. Eventually some decide to get out as the downside of the process outweighs the upside.
2. Privacy. There is a lot of talk about the big brother nature of Google and Facebook. They collect data on us and sell it. People are waking up to this and don't like it.
3. A manic, mindless motivation for website owners to connect up with Facebook and drag Facebook visitors to their site. I guess Facebook accept this as it gets more visitors to their site. It is a tug of war. Website owners have got to have a mile long series of buttons on every page of their site through which visitors can express their liking of the page or share it with "friends" that they have never met and don't even know. It is totally artificial and it has got out of hand.

It is time for website owners to stop being so dependent on Facebook and Twitter. It is a kind of parasitic activity. We should stand on our own feet. And it is time people met more in person, in the real world. It is more healthy that way. Facebook is feeding on our insecurity.

Stripping away the Facebook mask

Do you understand Facebook? I don't. I don't understand the opaque navigation, how to switch things on and off, the difference between a group and a community and so on. Nor do I understand the privacy policy. One reason, in fact the major reason, why I don't understand is because I can't be bothered to try and understand. All I want to do is connect with someone from time to time. And that is precisely what 90% of Facebook users want to do as well. It is meant to be social media not an obstacle course for geeks. Facebook use this human trait to make money. Perhaps the entire wealth producing model of Facebook is based on our apathy towards detail and complicated, time consuming things that we consider irrelevant.

The new Google Plus One button works in a similar way. They changed their search process, the core of their business, in a fairly quiet way by providing a personalised search as a default. This is a completely different way of searching, but did the man on top of the Clapham omnibus notice the change? You can turn off this customised search that is based on your personal profile, your likes and dislikes, your habits etc. But do you turn it off? Do you know where and how to turn it off, and more importantly can you be bothered to do it? Do you want a neutral search of the Internet or be spoon fed by big brother!

The banks work in the same way and make billions from our lack of concern. They create this lack of concern by making the rules complicated and opaque. We don't have the time, inclination, brain power or desire to wade through terms and conditions of bank agreements. For that reason, in the UK, they were able to mislead millions of people by selling them mortgage protection insurance without them being aware of it. These unfortunate people paid for the insurance premiums by a surcharge on the mortgage payments. Over the lifetime of the mortgage this amounted to thousands of pounds.

The insurance companies use our lack of understanding and apathy in the same way in selling poor policies and investments that just don't perform. Endowment policies are a classic example. The telephone companies have very complicated "tariffs" for the same reason - to baffle us. I won't go on.

We are told that Facebook is worth about $100 billion (one thousand million USD). That is what the financial boys call the IPO - initial public offering - shares offered to the public based on a valuation by "experts".

This valuation is based on the wealth of the personal information on the 800+ million Facebook members (March 2012) that is stored on FB's servers. This information is valuable to business. It is certainly by far the greatest repository of information about humankind ever compiled. We have given Facebook that information initially and throughout our use of the site. It seems that the almost invisible advertising revenue is very secondary.

You can delete your Facebook account "permanently" (see full data use policy). What does the word "account" mean? Does it include all your inputted information and all the information that you left on Facebook in a trail of activity while interacting with others? I am sure it does not, which means some information is not deleted. It can take 90 days to delete an account. What happens between day one and day 90 at Facebook with respect to that information?

When big business confuses us it uses us.