Beyond the boundary izumi

I found link to the course MindValley – Beyond Fasting – Ronan Oliviera
I found a link for the course for all of you out there who need it.
I don't know how long it will be available.
But it is working right now.
Link to download:
chrisdownload.com/mindvalley-beyond-fasting-ronan-oliviera-2022/

Just a small rant bc I have nobody to talk to about this and need to put it somewhere.
We broke up months ago for a brief moment because of a fuck up he made that broke my trust entirely and crushed my confidence/self image. I don’t wish to expand further on that, but it nearly destroyed us. He promised me he would actively seek help for his problem and that he would never disrespect me again. He said he wanted to work on it while we stayed together bc we could support one another. Naturally, it was hard to trust him again. I hated myself and blamed everything he did on there being something wrong with me. I would get insecure and express this and break down in tears and he made me feel like the bad guy for not being able to get past it. I was the one who kept bringing it up and I was the one who was retraumatizing us. How could we ever heal if I was never able to move on from it ? I started to feel awful and like he was right and that if I wanted to salvage our relationship then I had to move past it and push my insecurities to the side. I was beginning to feel confident again, acting more like myself and smiling more again. I still had my moments but was no longer accusatory. I believed him when he complimented me and said I was the only one in his eyes.
Jokes on me I guess. I found out this morning he was back on his bullshit. And he threw excuse after excuse at me about how this is just who he is and then excuses about his friends doing the same things and how that made it okay bc it’s a guy thing. He then said he was just a shitty person. The typical “I never deserved you”. He crossed my boundaries yet again and instead of any slight remorse for his actions I got excuses and bullshit phrases and then the silent treatment the whole way to my house. I’m mad at myself for being a fool and trusting him again. Im mad at myself for crying in front of him and begging him to show some emotion, some sign that our time together actually mattered and I wasn’t just a quick hit. I’m mad at him for having zero respect or remorse. I’m even more mad because part of me still thinks I should just get over it since everything else was great. I have such little self respect now that I tried to gaslight myself into thinking for a moment that him crossing clearly spoken boundaries (that were discussed before our relationship started) was okay.
Why not just break up with me if I was not what you wanted ? Why string me along with false hope and empty promises ? Why lie constantly to me and then make me feel like I was the problem ? Like I was crazy to think he could still be doing the same shit ? Why abuse how forgiving I am ? He has me wondering if anybody truly changes or if I should stop giving second chances overall. I’m leaning towards the latter.

I’ve gone above and beyond striving and trying so many things to initiate sex with him and been shot down so many times in favor of porn. Now, I cringe if he even touches me.
He said I don’t have the right “energy” to turn him on no matter what I try, and I’ve never given him the right “look”.
We’ve had a blow up and are sleeping apart while we look at how to rebuild. The problem is that I can’t imagine even trying to come on to him again, much less trying to figure out what the right energy or look are when the problem is that he already sees me as a tryhard and my efforts as too much. He doesn’t like my initiations because he says sex should flow and be easy, he says, so now I’m wracking my brain and trying super hard to think of how to make it flow and be easy. 🤦🏽‍♀️
I’ve never once in 3 years turned him down and he initiates like a handful of times a year at most.
I’m not ready to bust up our family over this, so we have to try again, but I don’t know how to feel confident enough to try. :-(

Really not quite sure how to word this, but I'm interested in your thoughts as well as any Masonic writers who've touched on this.
Any thoughts on taking some common things a step further into 3D, like instead of a point in a circle, a point in a sphere, etc.
Or, beyond dividing the day into 3, taking that into a fractal where each 3 is divided into 3, etc.
I know this is a little deep for some Brothers, but I know my guys are out there!

Winter Clan is a well-established multi-game community across the world. As a community, we are all about social gaming, making friends and acquaintances who share the love of gaming.
Winter Clan is recruiting friendly, mature players to play through all content the game has to offer mostly in Softcore, though we do have some Hardcore veterans and we’ll evolve as the community grows. Community leadership will host multiple weekly events based on clan feedback & encourages player engagement. With 4 full clans currently we're growing rapidly and will continue through official release and beyond, come join the fun.
If interested, please join the Winter Clan Discord at https://discord.gg/BZrTgmjwkv

I set a boundary with fair, staged consequences and expectations, and my husband hasnt spoken to me in over 2 days. He can send me tik toks but he won't text me or talk to me. He's gone out the last 2 nights. I feel like my chest is caving in. Holding this boundary and waiting for him to acknowledge it, say literally anything, even look at me, is killing me. As soon I stepped through the door I felt like I couldn't breathe. He's never cheated on me and now I'm paranoid, checking to see if his ring is still on, wondering why he's taking a shower, where he's going. I don't know how much more of this I can take. My eating disorder is coming back. I've eaten less and less over the last week. I'm just not hungry. Or I am but I don't want to eat. If I do it's garbage. Picking at trail mix or something.

Subject: Official Report on Non-Human Craft Retrieval by Government Authorities
Date: [Insert Date]
To: [Recipient’s Name and Position] From: [Your Name and Position] CC: [Additional Recipients]
Dear [Recipient’s Name],
I hope this report finds you well. As requested, I have prepared an official report on the retrieval of non-human crafts by government authorities. The information presented herein is based on verified data and observations collected up until September 2021. Please note that due to the sensitive nature of the topic, certain details may be classified or subject to restrictions on disclosure.

1. Background: Over the past decades, numerous reports and sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) have been documented by credible sources, including military personnel, pilots, and civilians. These UAP have demonstrated flight capabilities far exceeding any known human technology. In response to mounting evidence and public interest, the government initiated comprehensive investigations to ascertain their nature and origin.
   
2. Retrieval of Non-Human Craft: Through meticulous analysis and collaborative efforts involving governmental agencies, our investigation has confirmed the retrieval of non-human craft. The recovered objects exhibit advanced technological features, including propulsion systems, materials, and designs that surpass our current scientific understanding. The exact number of retrievals, as well as the specific locations, remain classified to ensure the security of ongoing operations and national interests.
   
3. Scientific Examination: Expert teams comprising scientists, engineers, and specialists from relevant fields have been convened to examine the retrieved non-human craft. Preliminary analyses have revealed revolutionary advancements in various areas, such as energy generation, propulsion, and material science. The understanding gained from these examinations holds significant potential for technological breakthroughs and scientific progress.
   
4. International Cooperation: Recognizing the global implications of non-human craft retrieval, efforts have been made to foster international cooperation and information sharing. Multiple countries have reported similar encounters and have expressed interest in collaborating on research and analysis. The formation of international task forces, working groups, and knowledge exchange programs is actively pursued to enhance our collective understanding and response to this phenomenon.
   
5. Public Disclosure: Balancing the need for transparency with national security concerns, a carefully managed approach to public disclosure is recommended. Properly educating and preparing the public for such groundbreaking revelations is paramount to avoid unnecessary panic or misinformation. Plans for a systematic release of information, subject to ongoing assessments of potential risks, are under development. Open channels for dialogue with the public, scientific communities, and the media should be established to address concerns and facilitate informed discussions.
   
6. Future Research and Implications: The retrieval of non-human craft presents an unparalleled opportunity to expand our knowledge of the universe and advance our technological capabilities. It is imperative to allocate resources and establish long-term research initiatives focused on understanding these craft and deciphering the underlying principles behind their advanced systems. Furthermore, the implications for our understanding of life beyond Earth and the potential existence of extraterrestrial intelligence require serious consideration and continued exploration.
   

Please note that the details contained within this report are highly confidential and should be handled with the utmost care and discretion. Access to this information should be strictly controlled to authorized personnel only.
Should you require additional information or clarification on any aspect of this report, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am available to discuss further or provide any necessary documentation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name] [Your Position] [Your Contact Information]

In honor of this week’s RightsCon and 360/OS Summit, we dug into the #TwitterFiles to revisit the integration of the Atlantic Council’s anti-disinformation arm, the Digital Forensic Research Labs (DFRLabs), while also highlighting its relationship with weapons manufacturers, Big Oil, Big Tech, and others who fund the NATO-aligned think tank.

The Atlantic Council is unique among “non-governmental” organizations thanks to its lavish support from governments and the energy, finance, and weapons sectors. It’s been a key player in the development of the “anti-disinformation” sector from the beginning.
It wasn’t an accident when its DFRLabs was chosen in 2018 to help Facebook “monitor for misinformation and foreign interference,” after the platform came under intense congressional scrutiny as a supposed unwitting participant in a Russian influence campaign.
Press uniformly described DFRLabs as an independent actor that would merely “improve security,” and it was left to media watchdog FAIR to point out that the Council was and is “dead center in what former President Obama’s deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes called ‘the blob.’”

What’s “the blob”? FAIR described it as “Washington’s bipartisan foreign-policy consensus,” but thanks to the Twitter Files, we can give a more comprehensive portrait.
In the runup to the 360/OS event in that same year, 2018, Graham Brookie of the Atlantic Council boasted to Twitter executives that the attendees would include the crème de la crème of international influence, people he explained resided at the “no-kidding decision-maker level”

Similar correspondence to and from DFRLabs and Twitter outlined early efforts to bring together as partners groups that traditionally served as watchdogs of one another.
Perhaps more even than the World Economic Forum meetings at Davos or gatherings of the Aspen Institute in the US, the Atlantic Council 360/OS confabs are as expansive a portrait of the Censorship-Industrial Complex as we’ve found collected in one place.

In October 2018, DFRLab was instrumental in helping Facebook identify accounts for what became known as “the purge,” a first set of deletions of sites accused of “coordinated inauthentic behavior.”
Facebook in its announcement of these removals said it was taking steps against accounts created to “stir up political debate,” and the October 2018 “purge” indeed included the likes of Punk Rock Libertarians, Cop Block, and Right Wing News, among others. Even the progressive Reverb Press, founded by a relatively mainstream progressive named James Reader, found his site zapped after years of pouring thousands of dollars a month into Facebook marketing tools.

In the years since, DFRLab has become the central coordination node in the Censorship Industrial Complex as well as a key protagonist in the Election Integrity Partnership and the Virality Project.
Its high-profile role at RightsCon, the biggest civil society digital rights event on the calendar, should concern human rights and free expression activists.

According to their London 2019 event “360/OS brings together journalists, activists, innovators, and leaders from around the world as part of our grassroots digital solidarity movement fighting for objective truth as a foundation of democracy.”
Their Digital Sherlocks program aims to “identify, expose, and explain disinformation.”

The Twitter Files reveal DFRLabs labeled as “disinformation” content that often turned out to be correct, that they participated in disinformation campaigns and the suppression of “true” information, and that they lead the coordination of a host of actors who do the same.

Twitter Files #17 showed how DFRLabs sent Twitter more than 40,000 names of alleged BJP (India’s ruling nationalist party) accounts that they suggested be taken down.
DFRLab said it suspected these were “paid employees or possibly volunteers.” However as Racket’s Matt Taibbi noted, “the list was full of ordinary Americans, many with no connection to India and no clue about Indian politics.”
Twitter recognized there was little illegitimate about them, resulting in DFRLabs pulling the project and cutting ties with the researcher.

Twitter Files #19 further revealed DFRLab was a core partner in the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which “came together in June of 2020 at the encouragement of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA” in order to “fill the gaps legally” that government couldn’t.
As a result, there are serious questions as to whether the EIP violated the US First Amendment.

DFRLabs was also a core partner on the Virality Project, which pushed its seven Big Tech partners to censor “stories of true vaccine side-effects.”

The Stanford Internet Observatory, which led the project, is now being sued by the New Civil Liberties Alliance for its censorship of “online support groups catering to those injured by Covid vaccines.”
Debate as to the frequency of serious adverse events is ongoing, however. The German health minister put it at 1 in 10,000, while others claim it is higher.

The Virality Project sought to suppress any public safety signals at all. The Stanford Internet Observatory is also at the moment reportedly resisting a House Judiciary Committee subpoena into its activities.

TwitterFiles #20 revealed some of the Digital Forensic Lab’s 2018 360/0S events, which brought together military leaders, human rights organizations, the Huffington Post, Facebook and Twitter, Edelman (the world’s biggest PR firm), the head of the Munich Security Conference, the head of the World Economic Forum (Borge Brende) a former President, Prime Minister and CIA head, intel front BellingCat and future Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa, all to combat “disinformation.” We can now reveal more.

The Atlantic Council is a NATO-aligned think tank established in 1961. Its board of directors and advisory board are a Who’s Who of corporate, intelligence and military power, including:

• James Clapper – former Director of National Intelligence whose tenure included overseeing the NSA during the time of the Snowden leaks. Asked whether intelligence officials collect data on Americans Clapper responded “No, sir,” and, “Not wittingly.” Clapper also coordinated intelligence community activity through the early stages of Russiagate, and his office authored a key January 2017 report concluding that Russians interfered in 2016 to help Donald Trump. Clapper has been a 360/OS attendee.
  
• Stephen Hadley, United States National Security Advisor from 2005 to 2009 (also a 360/OS attendee)
  
• Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State who oversaw the carpet bombing of Vietnam, among other crimes against humanity
  
• Pfizer CEO Anthony Bourla
  
• Stephen A. Schwarzman, Chairman, CEO, and Co-Founder, The Blackstone Group
  
• Meta’s President for Global Affairs, Nick Clegg
  
• Richard Edelman, CEO of the world’s largest PR firm (and 360/OS attendee)
  
• The Rt. Hon. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Former Secretary General of NATO
  
• Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, Former President of the World Bank
  
• Leon Panetta, former US Secretary of Defense & CIA Director. Panetta oversaw the US’s massive growth in drone strikes.
  
• John F. W. Rogers. Goldman Sachs Secretary of the Board
  

Chuck Hagel, chairman of the Council, sits on the board of Chevron and is also a former US Secretary of Defence.

The Atlantic Council raised $70 million in 2022, $25 million of which came from corporate interests.
Among the biggest donors were: the US Departments of Defense State, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller Foundation, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, Google, Crescent Petroleum, Chevron, Lockheed Martin, General Atomics, Meta, Blackstone, Apple, BP, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, Raytheon, ExxonMobil, Shell, Twitter, and many more.
Ukraine’s scandal-ridden energy company, Burisma, whose links to Hunter Biden were suppressed by the August 2020 table-top exercise coordinated by the Aspen Institute, also made a contribution.

You can view the full 2022 “honor roll” by clicking here.

The Atlantic Council and DFRLabs don’t hide their militarist affiliations.
This week’s OS/360 event at RightsCon Costa Rica runs together with a 360/OS at NATO’s Riga StratCom Dialogue, which DFRLab note they have “worked closely with” “since 2016.”

DFRLabs was founded in 2016, and has been a major catalyst in expanding the “anti-disinformation” industry.
Among non-governmental entities, perhaps only the Aspen Institute comes close to matching the scope, scale and funding power of DFRLabs.
DFRLabs claims to chart “the evolution of disinformation and other online and technological harms, especially as they relate to the DFRLab’s leadership role in establishing shared definitions, frameworks, and mitigation practices.”

Almost $7 million of the Atlantic Council’s $61 million spent last year went to the DRFLabs, according to their 2022 annual financial report.

Through its fellowship program, it has incubated leading figures in the “disinformation” field.

Richard Stengel, the first director of the Global Engagement Center (GEC), was a fellow.
GEC is an interagency group “within” the State Department (also a funder of the Atlantic Council), whose initial partners included the FBI, DHS, NSA, CIA, DARPA, Special Operations Command (SOCOM), and others.
GEC is now a major funder of DFRLabs and a frequent partner

In this video, Stengel says, “I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it, they have to do it to their own population, and I don’t think it’s that awful.”
Stengel was true to his word, and apart from DFRLab, the GEC funded the Global Disinformation Index, which set out to demonetize conservative media outlets it claimed were “disinformation.” (See 37. in the censorship list)

He thought the now-disgraced Hamilton68 was “fantastic.” In total, GEC funded 39 organizations in 2017.
Despite Freedom of Information requests, only 3 have been made public to date.

Roughly $78 million of GEC’s initial $100 million budget outlay for fiscal year 2017 came from the Pentagon, though the budgetary burden has shifted more toward the State Department in the years since.

The Global Engagement Center was established in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency, via a combination of an executive order and a bipartisan congressional appropriation, led by Ohio Republican Rob Portman and Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy.
The GEC was and remains virtually unknown, but reporting in the Twitter Files and by outlets like the Washington Examiner have revealed it to be a significant financial and logistical supporter of “anti-disinformation” causes.

Though tasked by Obama with countering “foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests,” its money has repeatedly worked its way back in the direction of policing domestic content, with Gabe Kaminsky’s Examiner reports on the GDI providing the most graphic example.

GEC frequently sent lists of “disinformation agents to Twitter.” Yoel Roth, former head of Trust and Safety referred to one list as a “total crock.” Roth is now a member of DFRLab’s Task Force for a Trustworthy Future Web. Let’s hope he brings more trust than Stengel. You can read more on GEC’s funding here.

Other DFRLab luminaries include Simon Clark, Chairman of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (a UK “anti-disinformation” outfit that aggressively deplatforms dissidents), Ben Nimmo (previously a NATO press officer, then of Graphika (EIP and the Virality Project partners) and now Facebook’s Global Threat Intelligence Lead), and Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat.

Bellingcat has an ominous reputation, which it’s earned in numerous ways, including its funding by the National Endowment for Democracy...

Most recently, Bellingcat assisted in the arrest of the 21-year-old Pentagon leaker, further speeding up the abandonment of the Pentagon Papers Principal where the media protected, rather than persecuted, leakers.
Bellingcat was part of 360/OS backroom meetings with former intel chiefs, the head of Davos and the Munich security conference among many others, as we will see soon.

The Virality Project built on the EIP and had partnerships with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Google, TikTok and more to combat vaccine “misinformation.”
Stanford and DFRLab partnered with the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, Graphika, NYU Tandon School of Engineering and Center for Social Media and Politics, and the National Congress on Citizenship.

Through a shared Jira ticketing system they connected these Big Tech platforms together, with Graphika using sophisticated AI to surveil the online conversation at scale in order to catch “misinformation” troublemakers.

VP went far beyond any kind of misinformation remit, most infamously recommending to their Big Tech partners that they consider “true stories of vaccine side effects” as “standard misinformation on your platform.”

A Virality Project partner called the Algorithmic Transparency Initiative (a project of the National Congress on Citizenship) went further.
Their Junkipedia initiative sought to address “problematic content” via the “automated collection of data” from “closed messaging apps,” and by building a Stasi-like “civic listening corps,” which in recent years has taken on a truly sinister-sounding mission.
The current incarnation might as well be called “SnitchCorps,” as “volunteers have an opportunity to join a guided monitoring shift to actively participate in monitoring topics that disrupt communities”

Garret Graff, who oversaw the Aspen Hunter Biden table-top exercise, was chairman of that same National Congress on Citizenship when they collaborated on the Virality Project.
Both EIP and VP were led by Renee DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory, a former CIA fellow who engineered the now disgraced New Knowledge initiative, which developed fake Russian bots to discredit a 2017 Alabama senate race candidate, as acknowledged by the Washington Post.

DFRLab are the elite of the “anti-disinformation” elite.
They work closely with a wide range of actors who have participated in actual disinformation initiatives.
Here they’re invited to an elite Twitter group set up by Nick Pickles of “anti-disinformation” luminaries First Draft, also participants in the Hunter Biden laptop tabletop, and the Alliance for Security Democracy, part of the RussiaGate Hamilton68 disinformation operation.

The 360/OS event marries this tarnished record with the financial, political, military, NGO, academic and intelligence elite. Some of this is visible through publicly available materials.
Twitter Files however reveal the behind the scenes, including closed door, off-the-record meetings.

“I’ve just arrived in Kyiv” Brookie notes in 2017, as he seeks to line up a meeting with Public Policy Director Nick Pickles as they discuss Twitter providing a USD $150K contribution to OS/360 (seemingly secured), and to garner high level Twitter participation.
Pickles is visiting DC and Brookie suggests he also meet with the GEC and former FBI agent Clint Watts of Hamilton 68 renown. “Happy to make those connections,” he chimes.

360/OS events are elite and expensive — $1 million according to Brookie — so closer collaboration with Twitter, especially in the form of funding, is a high priority.
Twitter offers $150,000

When Brookie mentions the attendees at the “no-kidding decision maker level” he isn’t kidding.
Parallel to the 360/OS public program is the much more important off-the-record meeting of “decision makers ranging from the C-Suite to the Situation Room.”

Here, he is explicit about a convening of military and financial power.
Vanguard 25 is presented as a way to “create a discreet and honest way to close the information gap on challenges like disinformation between key decision makers from government, tech, and media.”

The document boasts of its high-level participants

More are revealed in email exchanges, including Madeleine Albright and the head of the WEF

They go on to list a bizarre mishmash of media leaders, intelligence officials, and current or former heads of state

...Germany’s Angela Merkel was out of reach in the end, but many of the others attended this behind the scenes meeting on “disinformation.” Who are they?

• Matthias Dopfner – CEO and 22% owner of German media empire Axel Springer SE, the biggest media publishing firm in Europe
  
• Borge Brende – head of the World Economic Forum and former Norwegian foreign minister
  
• Toomas Hendrick Ilves – former President of Estonia who co-chairs the World Economic Forum’s Global Futures Council on Blockchain Technology. Hendrick is also a fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (where the Stanford Internet Observatory is housed) and is on the advisory council of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, of Hamilton 68 renown.
  
• Chris Sacca – billionaire venture capitalist
  
• Mounir Mahjoubi – previously Digital Manager for President Macron’s presidential campaign, and former Chairman of the French Digital Council
  
• Reid Hoffman – billionaire and Linkedin co-founder
  
• Ev Williams – Former CEO of Twitter and on the Twitter board at the time
  
• Kara Swisher – New York Times opinion writer, who founded Vox Media Recode
  
• Wolfgang Ischinger - Head of the Munich Security Conference
  
• Aleksander Kwasniewski – Former President of Poland. Led Poland into NATO and the EU.
  
• Richard Edelman – CEO of the largest PR company in the world
  
• Elliot Shrage – previously Vice-President of Public Policy at Facebook (DFRLab had election integrity projects with Facebook)
  
• Lydia Polgreen – Huffington Post Editor in Chief
  
• Jim Clapper –former US Director of National Intelligence
  
• Maria Ressa – co-founder of Rappler and soon to be winner of the Nobel Peace Prize
  

Why would such a group all gather specifically around the question of “disinformation”?
Is disinformation truly at such a level that it requires bringing together the world’s most popular author with military and intelligence leaders, the world’s biggest PR company, journalists, billionaires, Big Tech and more?

Or is this work to build the case that there is a disinformation crisis, to then justify the creation of a massive infrastructure for censorship? A glimpse of the agenda offers clues

Here the head of the most important military and intelligence conference in the world (Munich) sits down in a closed door meeting with a former Secretary of State and the Executive Vice-Chair of the Atlantic Council.

Which is followed by a closed door session with the Editor-in Chief of the ...Huffington Post and peace-maker Maria Ressa who presented to the same group of military, intelligence, corporate and other elites.
Is the role of a journalist and Nobel laureate to work behind closed doors with militarists and billionaires, or to hold them to account?

At 2022’s OS/360 at RightsCon Ressa conducted a softball interview on disinformation with current US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

In testimony last April 2023, former CIA deputy director Michael Morrell stated that Blinken “set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement” by more than 50 former intelligence officials that the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russia information operation.”

The Twitter Files also revealed that in August 2020 the Aspen Institute organized a table-top exercise to practice how best to respond to a “hack and leak” of a Hunter Biden laptop.
The laptop only came to light however two months later.
In attendance was First Draft (now the Information Futures Lab), the New York Times, Washington Post, Rolling Stone, CNN, Yahoo! News, Facebook, Twitter and more.

Here, DFRLab head Graham Brookie speaks with the Aspen Institute’s Garret Graff, who coordinated the Hunter Biden tabletop exercise.

After it turned out the Hunter Biden laptop was real, and the disinformation operation was more appropriately described as having been led by the likes of Blinken and the Aspen Institute.
The appropriate response is apparently for RightsCon, DFRLab, Blinken and Ressa to put on a nice forum to promote these figures as “anti-disinformation” leaders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8YTPuTC9xs

Former DFRLab fellow and intel front Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins is also invited to the closed door sessions with a former head of the CIA, a former Prime Minister and a President.

How do you keep power accountable when you are in the same cozy club? This theme runs throughout.
Bellingcat is featured heavily at the public sessions also

On the public side, we see Amnesty International participating to further collapse the distinction between those who are meant to hold power to account, and the powerful themselves.
The Iraq war gave us embedded journalists, and the “anti-disinformation” field gives us embedded digital rights activists.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Chris Krebs also joined the closed door session.
Krebs was Co-Chair of the Aspen Institute’s Commission on Information Disorder.
Other members included Prince Harry, the Virality Project’s Alex Stamos (Stanford Internet Observatory) and Kate Starbird (University of Washington and previous 360/OS participant), Katie Couric, and more. Craig Newmark attended as an observer.

Meanwhile Renee DiResta, former CIA fellow and Stanford Internet Observatory Research Director, presented with the former Prime Minister of Sweden.
This was years before she would launch the Virality Project, and take on the bugbear of “true stories of vaccine side effects.”

The President of the Atlantic Council participated in an “off-the-record, “ behind closed doors conversation on “trust” with the CEO of the world’s biggest PR firm, Edelman.

“Public relations” and “trust” may well be opposites, and trust is being destroyed not by the disinformation street crime that these groups claim to target, but by the disinformation corporate crime protected by, or in some cases created by these same people.
Disinformation is real, but its biggest purveyors are governments and powerful corporate interests.

DFRLab and RightsCon show just how far the capture of civil society by elite interests has come. Again, I made a mistake helping to co-organize RightsCon in 2015.

The jumping in bed with the government and Big Tech was arguably there in 2015, though to a much lesser degree.
It now partners with militarists in the form of the Atlantic Council and is an enabler of the “disinformation” grift that is so deeply impacting freedom of speech and expression.

The air-gaps that should separate civil society, media, military, billionaires, intelligence and government have collapsed, and many of these actors have formed a new alliance to advance their shared interests.
If weapons manufacturers funding human rights is considered legitimate then where is the red line? Effectively, there is none.

This collapse however has also been pushed by funders, who have been proactive in asking NGOs to collaborate more with Big Tech and government - something I successfully resisted for my almost 18 years at EngageMedia, critically RightsCon was the only time I let my guard down.

The RightsCon sponsor matrix wouldn’t be out of place at NASCAR
This is the equivalent of hosting a Climate Change conference sponsored by Shell, BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil.

How do you keep power accountable when Big Tech pays your wage? The “let’s all work together” approach has failed.
The weakest partner, civil society, got captured and we lost.
Many more lost their way and have acquiesced to and often enabled much of the new censorship regime.

https://www.racket.news/p/twitter-files-extra-how-the-worlds

In honor of this week’s RightsCon and 360/OS Summit, we dug into the #TwitterFiles to revisit the integration of the Atlantic Council’s anti-disinformation arm, the Digital Forensic Research Labs (DFRLabs), while also highlighting its relationship with weapons manufacturers, Big Oil, Big Tech, and others who fund the NATO-aligned think tank.

The Atlantic Council is unique among “non-governmental” organizations thanks to its lavish support from governments and the energy, finance, and weapons sectors. It’s been a key player in the development of the “anti-disinformation” sector from the beginning.
It wasn’t an accident when its DFRLabs was chosen in 2018 to help Facebook “monitor for misinformation and foreign interference,” after the platform came under intense congressional scrutiny as a supposed unwitting participant in a Russian influence campaign.
Press uniformly described DFRLabs as an independent actor that would merely “improve security,” and it was left to media watchdog FAIR to point out that the Council was and is “dead center in what former President Obama’s deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes called ‘the blob.’”

What’s “the blob”? FAIR described it as “Washington’s bipartisan foreign-policy consensus,” but thanks to the Twitter Files, we can give a more comprehensive portrait.
In the runup to the 360/OS event in that same year, 2018, Graham Brookie of the Atlantic Council boasted to Twitter executives that the attendees would include the crème de la crème of international influence, people he explained resided at the “no-kidding decision-maker level”

Similar correspondence to and from DFRLabs and Twitter outlined early efforts to bring together as partners groups that traditionally served as watchdogs of one another.
Perhaps more even than the World Economic Forum meetings at Davos or gatherings of the Aspen Institute in the US, the Atlantic Council 360/OS confabs are as expansive a portrait of the Censorship-Industrial Complex as we’ve found collected in one place.

In October 2018, DFRLab was instrumental in helping Facebook identify accounts for what became known as “the purge,” a first set of deletions of sites accused of “coordinated inauthentic behavior.”
Facebook in its announcement of these removals said it was taking steps against accounts created to “stir up political debate,” and the October 2018 “purge” indeed included the likes of Punk Rock Libertarians, Cop Block, and Right Wing News, among others. Even the progressive Reverb Press, founded by a relatively mainstream progressive named James Reader, found his site zapped after years of pouring thousands of dollars a month into Facebook marketing tools.

In the years since, DFRLab has become the central coordination node in the Censorship Industrial Complex as well as a key protagonist in the Election Integrity Partnership and the Virality Project.
Its high-profile role at RightsCon, the biggest civil society digital rights event on the calendar, should concern human rights and free expression activists.

According to their London 2019 event “360/OS brings together journalists, activists, innovators, and leaders from around the world as part of our grassroots digital solidarity movement fighting for objective truth as a foundation of democracy.”
Their Digital Sherlocks program aims to “identify, expose, and explain disinformation.”

The Twitter Files reveal DFRLabs labeled as “disinformation” content that often turned out to be correct, that they participated in disinformation campaigns and the suppression of “true” information, and that they lead the coordination of a host of actors who do the same.

Twitter Files #17 showed how DFRLabs sent Twitter more than 40,000 names of alleged BJP (India’s ruling nationalist party) accounts that they suggested be taken down.
DFRLab said it suspected these were “paid employees or possibly volunteers.” However as Racket’s Matt Taibbi noted, “the list was full of ordinary Americans, many with no connection to India and no clue about Indian politics.”
Twitter recognized there was little illegitimate about them, resulting in DFRLabs pulling the project and cutting ties with the researcher.

Twitter Files #19 further revealed DFRLab was a core partner in the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which “came together in June of 2020 at the encouragement of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA” in order to “fill the gaps legally” that government couldn’t.
As a result, there are serious questions as to whether the EIP violated the US First Amendment.

DFRLabs was also a core partner on the Virality Project, which pushed its seven Big Tech partners to censor “stories of true vaccine side-effects.”

The Stanford Internet Observatory, which led the project, is now being sued by the New Civil Liberties Alliance for its censorship of “online support groups catering to those injured by Covid vaccines.”
Debate as to the frequency of serious adverse events is ongoing, however. The German health minister put it at 1 in 10,000, while others claim it is higher.

The Virality Project sought to suppress any public safety signals at all. The Stanford Internet Observatory is also at the moment reportedly resisting a House Judiciary Committee subpoena into its activities.

TwitterFiles #20 revealed some of the Digital Forensic Lab’s 2018 360/0S events, which brought together military leaders, human rights organizations, the Huffington Post, Facebook and Twitter, Edelman (the world’s biggest PR firm), the head of the Munich Security Conference, the head of the World Economic Forum (Borge Brende) a former President, Prime Minister and CIA head, intel front BellingCat and future Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa, all to combat “disinformation.” We can now reveal more.

The Atlantic Council is a NATO-aligned think tank established in 1961. Its board of directors and advisory board are a Who’s Who of corporate, intelligence and military power, including:

• James Clapper – former Director of National Intelligence whose tenure included overseeing the NSA during the time of the Snowden leaks. Asked whether intelligence officials collect data on Americans Clapper responded “No, sir,” and, “Not wittingly.” Clapper also coordinated intelligence community activity through the early stages of Russiagate, and his office authored a key January 2017 report concluding that Russians interfered in 2016 to help Donald Trump. Clapper has been a 360/OS attendee.
  
• Stephen Hadley, United States National Security Advisor from 2005 to 2009 (also a 360/OS attendee)
  
• Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State who oversaw the carpet bombing of Vietnam, among other crimes against humanity
  
• Pfizer CEO Anthony Bourla
  
• Stephen A. Schwarzman, Chairman, CEO, and Co-Founder, The Blackstone Group
  
• Meta’s President for Global Affairs, Nick Clegg
  
• Richard Edelman, CEO of the world’s largest PR firm (and 360/OS attendee)
  
• The Rt. Hon. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Former Secretary General of NATO
  
• Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, Former President of the World Bank
  
• Leon Panetta, former US Secretary of Defense & CIA Director. Panetta oversaw the US’s massive growth in drone strikes.
  
• John F. W. Rogers. Goldman Sachs Secretary of the Board
  

Chuck Hagel, chairman of the Council, sits on the board of Chevron and is also a former US Secretary of Defence.

The Atlantic Council raised $70 million in 2022, $25 million of which came from corporate interests.
Among the biggest donors were: the US Departments of Defense State, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller Foundation, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, Google, Crescent Petroleum, Chevron, Lockheed Martin, General Atomics, Meta, Blackstone, Apple, BP, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, Raytheon, ExxonMobil, Shell, Twitter, and many more.
Ukraine’s scandal-ridden energy company, Burisma, whose links to Hunter Biden were suppressed by the August 2020 table-top exercise coordinated by the Aspen Institute, also made a contribution.

You can view the full 2022 “honor roll” by clicking here.

The Atlantic Council and DFRLabs don’t hide their militarist affiliations.
This week’s OS/360 event at RightsCon Costa Rica runs together with a 360/OS at NATO’s Riga StratCom Dialogue, which DFRLab note they have “worked closely with” “since 2016.”

DFRLabs was founded in 2016, and has been a major catalyst in expanding the “anti-disinformation” industry.
Among non-governmental entities, perhaps only the Aspen Institute comes close to matching the scope, scale and funding power of DFRLabs.
DFRLabs claims to chart “the evolution of disinformation and other online and technological harms, especially as they relate to the DFRLab’s leadership role in establishing shared definitions, frameworks, and mitigation practices.”

Almost $7 million of the Atlantic Council’s $61 million spent last year went to the DRFLabs, according to their 2022 annual financial report.

Through its fellowship program, it has incubated leading figures in the “disinformation” field.

Richard Stengel, the first director of the Global Engagement Center (GEC), was a fellow.
GEC is an interagency group “within” the State Department (also a funder of the Atlantic Council), whose initial partners included the FBI, DHS, NSA, CIA, DARPA, Special Operations Command (SOCOM), and others.
GEC is now a major funder of DFRLabs and a frequent partner

In this video, Stengel says, “I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it, they have to do it to their own population, and I don’t think it’s that awful.”
Stengel was true to his word, and apart from DFRLab, the GEC funded the Global Disinformation Index, which set out to demonetize conservative media outlets it claimed were “disinformation.” (See 37. in the censorship list)

He thought the now-disgraced Hamilton68 was “fantastic.” In total, GEC funded 39 organizations in 2017.
Despite Freedom of Information requests, only 3 have been made public to date.

Roughly $78 million of GEC’s initial $100 million budget outlay for fiscal year 2017 came from the Pentagon, though the budgetary burden has shifted more toward the State Department in the years since.

The Global Engagement Center was established in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency, via a combination of an executive order and a bipartisan congressional appropriation, led by Ohio Republican Rob Portman and Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy.
The GEC was and remains virtually unknown, but reporting in the Twitter Files and by outlets like the Washington Examiner have revealed it to be a significant financial and logistical supporter of “anti-disinformation” causes.

Though tasked by Obama with countering “foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests,” its money has repeatedly worked its way back in the direction of policing domestic content, with Gabe Kaminsky’s Examiner reports on the GDI providing the most graphic example.

GEC frequently sent lists of “disinformation agents to Twitter.” Yoel Roth, former head of Trust and Safety referred to one list as a “total crock.” Roth is now a member of DFRLab’s Task Force for a Trustworthy Future Web. Let’s hope he brings more trust than Stengel. You can read more on GEC’s funding here.

Other DFRLab luminaries include Simon Clark, Chairman of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (a UK “anti-disinformation” outfit that aggressively deplatforms dissidents), Ben Nimmo (previously a NATO press officer, then of Graphika (EIP and the Virality Project partners) and now Facebook’s Global Threat Intelligence Lead), and Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat.

Bellingcat has an ominous reputation, which it’s earned in numerous ways, including its funding by the National Endowment for Democracy...

Most recently, Bellingcat assisted in the arrest of the 21-year-old Pentagon leaker, further speeding up the abandonment of the Pentagon Papers Principal where the media protected, rather than persecuted, leakers.
Bellingcat was part of 360/OS backroom meetings with former intel chiefs, the head of Davos and the Munich security conference among many others, as we will see soon.

The Virality Project built on the EIP and had partnerships with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Google, TikTok and more to combat vaccine “misinformation.”
Stanford and DFRLab partnered with the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, Graphika, NYU Tandon School of Engineering and Center for Social Media and Politics, and the National Congress on Citizenship.

Through a shared Jira ticketing system they connected these Big Tech platforms together, with Graphika using sophisticated AI to surveil the online conversation at scale in order to catch “misinformation” troublemakers.

VP went far beyond any kind of misinformation remit, most infamously recommending to their Big Tech partners that they consider “true stories of vaccine side effects” as “standard misinformation on your platform.”

A Virality Project partner called the Algorithmic Transparency Initiative (a project of the National Congress on Citizenship) went further.
Their Junkipedia initiative sought to address “problematic content” via the “automated collection of data” from “closed messaging apps,” and by building a Stasi-like “civic listening corps,” which in recent years has taken on a truly sinister-sounding mission.
The current incarnation might as well be called “SnitchCorps,” as “volunteers have an opportunity to join a guided monitoring shift to actively participate in monitoring topics that disrupt communities”

Garret Graff, who oversaw the Aspen Hunter Biden table-top exercise, was chairman of that same National Congress on Citizenship when they collaborated on the Virality Project.
Both EIP and VP were led by Renee DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory, a former CIA fellow who engineered the now disgraced New Knowledge initiative, which developed fake Russian bots to discredit a 2017 Alabama senate race candidate, as acknowledged by the Washington Post.

DFRLab are the elite of the “anti-disinformation” elite.
They work closely with a wide range of actors who have participated in actual disinformation initiatives.
Here they’re invited to an elite Twitter group set up by Nick Pickles of “anti-disinformation” luminaries First Draft, also participants in the Hunter Biden laptop tabletop, and the Alliance for Security Democracy, part of the RussiaGate Hamilton68 disinformation operation.

The 360/OS event marries this tarnished record with the financial, political, military, NGO, academic and intelligence elite. Some of this is visible through publicly available materials.
Twitter Files however reveal the behind the scenes, including closed door, off-the-record meetings.

“I’ve just arrived in Kyiv” Brookie notes in 2017, as he seeks to line up a meeting with Public Policy Director Nick Pickles as they discuss Twitter providing a USD $150K contribution to OS/360 (seemingly secured), and to garner high level Twitter participation.
Pickles is visiting DC and Brookie suggests he also meet with the GEC and former FBI agent Clint Watts of Hamilton 68 renown. “Happy to make those connections,” he chimes.

360/OS events are elite and expensive — $1 million according to Brookie — so closer collaboration with Twitter, especially in the form of funding, is a high priority.
Twitter offers $150,000

When Brookie mentions the attendees at the “no-kidding decision maker level” he isn’t kidding.
Parallel to the 360/OS public program is the much more important off-the-record meeting of “decision makers ranging from the C-Suite to the Situation Room.”

Here, he is explicit about a convening of military and financial power.
Vanguard 25 is presented as a way to “create a discreet and honest way to close the information gap on challenges like disinformation between key decision makers from government, tech, and media.”

The document boasts of its high-level participants

More are revealed in email exchanges, including Madeleine Albright and the head of the WEF

They go on to list a bizarre mishmash of media leaders, intelligence officials, and current or former heads of state

...Germany’s Angela Merkel was out of reach in the end, but many of the others attended this behind the scenes meeting on “disinformation.” Who are they?

• Matthias Dopfner – CEO and 22% owner of German media empire Axel Springer SE, the biggest media publishing firm in Europe
  
• Borge Brende – head of the World Economic Forum and former Norwegian foreign minister
  
• Toomas Hendrick Ilves – former President of Estonia who co-chairs the World Economic Forum’s Global Futures Council on Blockchain Technology. Hendrick is also a fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (where the Stanford Internet Observatory is housed) and is on the advisory council of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, of Hamilton 68 renown.
  
• Chris Sacca – billionaire venture capitalist
  
• Mounir Mahjoubi – previously Digital Manager for President Macron’s presidential campaign, and former Chairman of the French Digital Council
  
• Reid Hoffman – billionaire and Linkedin co-founder
  
• Ev Williams – Former CEO of Twitter and on the Twitter board at the time
  
• Kara Swisher – New York Times opinion writer, who founded Vox Media Recode
  
• Wolfgang Ischinger - Head of the Munich Security Conference
  
• Aleksander Kwasniewski – Former President of Poland. Led Poland into NATO and the EU.
  
• Richard Edelman – CEO of the largest PR company in the world
  
• Elliot Shrage – previously Vice-President of Public Policy at Facebook (DFRLab had election integrity projects with Facebook)
  
• Lydia Polgreen – Huffington Post Editor in Chief
  
• Jim Clapper –former US Director of National Intelligence
  
• Maria Ressa – co-founder of Rappler and soon to be winner of the Nobel Peace Prize
  

Why would such a group all gather specifically around the question of “disinformation”?
Is disinformation truly at such a level that it requires bringing together the world’s most popular author with military and intelligence leaders, the world’s biggest PR company, journalists, billionaires, Big Tech and more?

Or is this work to build the case that there is a disinformation crisis, to then justify the creation of a massive infrastructure for censorship? A glimpse of the agenda offers clues

Here the head of the most important military and intelligence conference in the world (Munich) sits down in a closed door meeting with a former Secretary of State and the Executive Vice-Chair of the Atlantic Council.

Which is followed by a closed door session with the Editor-in Chief of the ...Huffington Post and peace-maker Maria Ressa who presented to the same group of military, intelligence, corporate and other elites.
Is the role of a journalist and Nobel laureate to work behind closed doors with militarists and billionaires, or to hold them to account?

At 2022’s OS/360 at RightsCon Ressa conducted a softball interview on disinformation with current US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

In testimony last April 2023, former CIA deputy director Michael Morrell stated that Blinken “set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement” by more than 50 former intelligence officials that the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russia information operation.”

The Twitter Files also revealed that in August 2020 the Aspen Institute organized a table-top exercise to practice how best to respond to a “hack and leak” of a Hunter Biden laptop.
The laptop only came to light however two months later.
In attendance was First Draft (now the Information Futures Lab), the New York Times, Washington Post, Rolling Stone, CNN, Yahoo! News, Facebook, Twitter and more.

Here, DFRLab head Graham Brookie speaks with the Aspen Institute’s Garret Graff, who coordinated the Hunter Biden tabletop exercise.

After it turned out the Hunter Biden laptop was real, and the disinformation operation was more appropriately described as having been led by the likes of Blinken and the Aspen Institute.
The appropriate response is apparently for RightsCon, DFRLab, Blinken and Ressa to put on a nice forum to promote these figures as “anti-disinformation” leaders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8YTPuTC9xs

Former DFRLab fellow and intel front Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins is also invited to the closed door sessions with a former head of the CIA, a former Prime Minister and a President.

How do you keep power accountable when you are in the same cozy club? This theme runs throughout.
Bellingcat is featured heavily at the public sessions also

On the public side, we see Amnesty International participating to further collapse the distinction between those who are meant to hold power to account, and the powerful themselves.
The Iraq war gave us embedded journalists, and the “anti-disinformation” field gives us embedded digital rights activists.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Chris Krebs also joined the closed door session.
Krebs was Co-Chair of the Aspen Institute’s Commission on Information Disorder.
Other members included Prince Harry, the Virality Project’s Alex Stamos (Stanford Internet Observatory) and Kate Starbird (University of Washington and previous 360/OS participant), Katie Couric, and more. Craig Newmark attended as an observer.

Meanwhile Renee DiResta, former CIA fellow and Stanford Internet Observatory Research Director, presented with the former Prime Minister of Sweden.
This was years before she would launch the Virality Project, and take on the bugbear of “true stories of vaccine side effects.”

The President of the Atlantic Council participated in an “off-the-record, “ behind closed doors conversation on “trust” with the CEO of the world’s biggest PR firm, Edelman.

“Public relations” and “trust” may well be opposites, and trust is being destroyed not by the disinformation street crime that these groups claim to target, but by the disinformation corporate crime protected by, or in some cases created by these same people.
Disinformation is real, but its biggest purveyors are governments and powerful corporate interests.

DFRLab and RightsCon show just how far the capture of civil society by elite interests has come. Again, I made a mistake helping to co-organize RightsCon in 2015.

The jumping in bed with the government and Big Tech was arguably there in 2015, though to a much lesser degree.
It now partners with militarists in the form of the Atlantic Council and is an enabler of the “disinformation” grift that is so deeply impacting freedom of speech and expression.

The air-gaps that should separate civil society, media, military, billionaires, intelligence and government have collapsed, and many of these actors have formed a new alliance to advance their shared interests.
If weapons manufacturers funding human rights is considered legitimate then where is the red line? Effectively, there is none.

This collapse however has also been pushed by funders, who have been proactive in asking NGOs to collaborate more with Big Tech and government - something I successfully resisted for my almost 18 years at EngageMedia, critically RightsCon was the only time I let my guard down.

The RightsCon sponsor matrix wouldn’t be out of place at NASCAR
This is the equivalent of hosting a Climate Change conference sponsored by Shell, BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil.

How do you keep power accountable when Big Tech pays your wage? The “let’s all work together” approach has failed.
The weakest partner, civil society, got captured and we lost.
Many more lost their way and have acquiesced to and often enabled much of the new censorship regime.

https://www.racket.news/p/twitter-files-extra-how-the-worlds

I (15) F and my mom were talking about going to the gym because the gym is my therapy at this point, when she brought up the fact that the kid next door (15) M wanting to go to the gym too. Now i’ve never met him truly, i’ve seen him time to time but he doesn’t live at the family next door he just vists. Currently, he is helping his family and my mom with a project and my mom got him a treat of some sort, i do not know what it was due to doing finals. One of his family members is at work and another is just playing video games so my mom had brought up the gym and he obviously agreed. Now due to some things that have happened to me that isn’t relevant to this situation, i’m not to comfortable with men, i’m very sorry if this offended anyone but i’m just very conscious. My mom had brought this up to me saying that (for sake of story we’ll call him river) River wanted to go to the gym also and as I was in the middle of doing some quizzes before i started on some final studying i just kinda stared at her with a confused and uncomfortable expression. This interaction went fast so please bare with me, she said “i think it’s quite selfish you wouldn’t bring him along when you’d be on different equipment.” which i understood but this gym is quite small when it’s busy which is the time that we’d be going, i replied with “I don’t think it’s being selfish, I’m just not too comfortable with it.” She looked at me and rolled her eyes and started yelling about how i’m a snot and so selfish, I feel like i’m just overreacting to this and i shouldn’t let it bother me so much but my mom doesn’t respect some of my boundaries anyway even when it comes to just knocking when i’m changing. So AITA?

So I left my husband a few months ago now, we were together for 5.5 years, married for 2.5 of those. My husband is from another continent and we moved to my home country a couple of years ago, as the country where we met was quickly becoming a hard place to live during the pandemic and due to other political reasons..
I'll admit our marriage was probably rushed by our wanting to get out of there and the search for a better life.. I did love him but our relationship was already showing signs it probably wouldn't last, nevertheless I still married him, as I wanted to give our marriage a chance and help him, believing he would work on some of the issues I was having with him..
Basically he would never allow me to have time to myself, he was always there with me apart from when we were at work, he would refuse to do anything without me and this caused huge fights.. during which he would not let me sleep.. he would keep me awake by talking and poking me, insisting on talking about it there and then instead of allowing a cooling period.. I wasn't allowed to have any boundaries, if I refused intimacy I would get the silent treatment or he would keep insisting anyway until I would end up just giving in just to have some peace..
We moved to my country and he made no attempts to learn the language there unless I sat down and did lessons with him.. he wouldn't even try and make friends with anyone, this was something I always encouraged him to do but he was never interested. I started to get very bored with him, being in his company, he never had anything new to say and was always negative about anything I wanted to do for myself.
In the last year or two his behaviour got more worrying, he would make up false accusations against me and I would have to defend myself against a made-up lie in his head.. he did this several times ( our only time apart was work, I don't have a social life..) .. he would behave bizzarely sometimes and never respect what I said or explain himself when I tried to ask him. Months ago I caught him recording my intimate parts while I slept and I am sure he continued afterwards.. I also caught him watching porn several times, something he always claimed he never liked when I met him.
He blocked the door when I wanted to get away from him several times, he was never physically or verbally abusive but he definitely was emotionally abusive.
I was always on edge and stressed out with him, always doing things for him.. he wouldn't even do the shopping as he wouldn't even try get a license in my country.
The final straw was losing his job for giving unwanted attention to other women and a few of them complained about him. This was a job I got for him.
I left the place we were renting a few months ago and told him it would be best for him to return to his own country but he said he doesn't want to do that, that he is going to stay here. I also spoke to his family and let them know.
The contract on our rental expires in a few weeks when he will then be on the streets as he has refused to take my advice since I left. I do feel somewhat responsible for him as he doesn't speak the language but at the same time he will not stop harassing me.and just repeating himself.. he refuses to accept that I have left him and tries to convince me I am being cruel and that I still love him. I definitely don't. I was willing to help him find a place to rent but he just makes it impossible for me to be around him.
Should I just continue with my life and let him end up homeless, I am definitely leaning more towards this as the days go by. I am a lot happier since leaving!
Sorry for the long winded post. He is in his fourties for context..

Chat us at (+) 447593882116 (Telegram/WhatsApp) to get Stirling Cooper - Premature Ejaculation Book.
Stirling Cooper - Premature Ejaculation Book will show you everything you need to know, to:

• CONTROL your urges to finish fast,
  
• EXTEND sex to the time it takes her to cum - and beyond, and
  
• INSTANTLY become her highest priority lover in no time flat!
  

Contact us to get Stirling Cooper - Premature Ejaculation Book!
Here’s A Breakdown Of Exactly What’s Inside Stirling Cooper - Premature Ejaculation Book
Stirling Cooper - Premature Ejaculation Book book dives into arguably the MOST vital segments of consistently lasting longer:

• The ONLY definition of P.E. that really matters,
  
• The TRUE, underlying cause of P.E. - that, once fixed, will permanently eliminate the issue!
  
• Why you NEED to fix this problem forever - starting right now,
  
• Common myths, and the TERRIBLE current solutions most guys rely on (and why they make your problems worse!) and much more!
  

To get Stirling Cooper - Premature Ejaculation Book contact me on:
Whatsapp/Telegram: (+) 447593882116 (@multistorecourses)
Reddit DM to u/RequestCourseAccess
Email: silverlakestore[@]yandex.com (remove the brackets)

Salary: $155,000 - $190,000 Are you ready for a new way of working? Automox is launching organizations into the future with cloud-native IT operations. By ditching clunky legacy tools and automating soul-crushing manual tasks, IT admins can get back to more exciting, strategic work. Behind our effortlessly modern platform is a group of builders, innovators, and entrepreneurial thinkers breaking the status quo–and having a lot of fun doing it. Our award winning culture, values, and community are shaped by real people doing really extraordinary work.
Ditch your daily commute, say goodbye to the typical nine-to-five, and embrace a new way of working at Automox.
We are a fully distributed company and have remote workers throughout the United States. We are currently not able to hire in California, Seattle area, or New York metro
OVERVIEW You are a seasoned software developer who is dedicated to your craft; you write code that you are proud of and can hit the ground running. You write beautiful, fast code to a high standard, in a timely and scalable way that improves the code-base of our disruptive SaaS based endpoint management software in meaningful ways. You will be a part of a creative team that is responsible for all aspects of the ongoing software development from the initial specification, through to developing, testing and launching.
As a Software Engineer on the Agent team you will: Research, design, develop, and own solutions that provide feature-rich experiences in our Agent application. Lead by example by championing software development best practices, and writing well-designed code. Extend, enhance, and maintain the Agent application. Contribute to continual improvement by testing, performance tuning, refactoring, usability improvements, and automation. Produce detailed specifications, and contribute in all phases of the engineering lifecycle. Operate with a quality-first mindset. Your approach to testing sets you apart from your peers. Make data-driven decisions. You understand the impact of your development before it reaches production.
About you: Programming experience in Golang is required. That being said, the right candidate will leverage their extensive engineering background to be impactful in any language. 10+ years of experience designing, developing, testing, monitoring, and maintaining client-side applications. Some familiarity with web installers, sequence diagramming, systems programming, DevOps, PowerShell, bash, zsh, etc. Windows and/or Linux and/or macOS application development experience. Experience working as a Software Engineer within an Agent Team or on the Agent is a plus. Excellent communicator, thrives within a tightly knit, cross-functional team environment.
COMPENSATION $155,000 - $190,000 a year
Base pay is part of a rich total compensation package that includes bonus, equity and benefits. Actual earnings may be less or more depending on a candidate's direct experience, skills, industry knowledge, and location.
ABOUT AUTOMOX Automox is the cloud-native IT operations platform for modern organizations. Our award-winning answer to modern IT operations and best-in-class results earned Automox four straight quarters of record growth. We are now trusted by more than 2,500 leading companies and MSPs worldwide, including NASA, Yale, Xerox, Allbirds, and Unicef. It makes it easy to keep every endpoint automatically configured, patched, and secured – anywhere in the world. The future of IT Operations is cloud-native – and right now. Will you join us?
TOTAL REWARDS: Thrive with Us Beyond the Status Quo 🇺🇸 Work from almost anywhere in the USA*** 💵Competitive Salary 📈Equity for Full-Time Employees 🏦 401K Match 🏝Flexible PTO, generous sick time policy 👋🏽$20 a month to connect virtually with colleagues ⏱Active Giving committee and employee-led communities
Health & Wellness 🩺 Comprehensive Health Plans with generous employer contributions 🩺100% Company-paid Short Term/Long Term Disability and Life Insurance 🩺 Company HSA Contribution: $100-$150-$200 per month based on tier 🩺 Gender Affirmation Coverage on Cigna Medical Plan (including surgery)
Happiness & Well-Being 🎁 $50 per month Lifestyle Spending Account 💻 Internet Reimbursement - $50/month 🗄 $750 Home office stipend 👨‍👧‍👦 $10k Adoption Benefit 🤰🏽Comprehensive Family Planning Covered on Cigna Medical Plan 👶🏽 Up to 12 weeks of paid leave for new parents
LOCATION We are a fully distributed company and have remote workers throughout the United States. We are currently not able to hire in California, Seattle area, or New York metro
Read more / apply: https://www.golangprojects.com/golang-go-job-gao-Remote-Staff-Software-Engineer-Agent-Golang-Automox-remotework.html

Reply Quote Grade as ReadThread:NegotiationPost:RE: NegotiationAuthor:📷 Jalal RahmanPosted Date:1 June 2023 11:58 PMStatus:Published
Dear Management, Premier Bank Pty Ltd,
Multi-week Roster Cycle
We appreciate your prompt response and consideration of the proposed roster cycle changes. We appreciate that you recognize the significance of coming to an agreement that is equitable and beneficial to both parties. In light of the points you brought up, we'd like to elaborate on our position and offer some ideas to ensure that everyone understands our point of view fully.
Right off the bat, we need to stress the expected advantages of a more drawn-out five-week cycle for both the workers and the bank. This long-term would give employees all the more back-to-back days off, considering a better balance between work-life balance and personal mental health improvement and working on prosperity. Employees who have access to longer breaks consistently report reduced levels of stress, improved mental health, and boosted job satisfaction, according to research. Premier Bank Pty Ltd can create a positive work environment that boosts productivity, loyalty, and ultimately customer satisfaction by placing a high priority on employee well-being.
Although we are aware of the concerns raised regarding employee burnout and fatigue, we are of the firm belief that a cycle of five weeks that has been thoughtfully designed can effectively address these issues. Premier Bank Pty Ltd can reduce fatigue risks and ensure employees have enough time to relax and recover by looking into additional breaks or making shift assignments more flexible. Employees' long-term performance and job satisfaction will both benefit from these measures, as will their physical and mental health.
As far as the Rotation design, we concur that a turning shift timetable can add to worker commitment and occupation fulfillment by giving assortment and staying away from dreariness. We perceive the significance of finding some harmony between worker predilections and functional requirements. We can construct a timetable that meets the needs of Premier Bank Pty Ltd while also appreciating the importance and well-being of the employees by jointly designing a rotation system that takes into account both aspects. The workforce will experience a sense of fairness and empowerment as a result of this inclusive strategy.
In any negotiation, equity and fairness remain paramount. We value the bank's help with the proposed shift portion framework, which considers factors like status, worker inclinations, and ranges of abilities. This strategy ensures that shifts are distributed fairly and gives all employees equal chances to work desirable shifts. In any case, to keep up with straightforwardness and address any possible uneven situations over the long run, we propose executing standard surveys of the allocation framework. These audits will take into account changes in light of worker criticism, guaranteeing that the dispersion of movements stays fair and sustains representative fulfillment and confidence.
Regarding implementation and change, we would like to reiterate our appreciation for Premier Bank Pty Ltd.'s dedication to efficient training and communication. During the transition period, it is essential to communicate clearly and promptly to ensure that employees comprehend the new roster system and its benefits. In addition, comprehensive training sessions will give workers the knowledge and abilities they need to smoothly adjust to the modifications. To address any difficulties that may arise during the transition period, we also recommend establishing a specialized support system. This support system might consist of designated personnel or a helpdesk that can guide and assist employees, ensuring that the implementation goes off without a hitch.
In conclusion, we strongly believe that we can reach an agreement that prioritizes employee well-being while aligning with Premier Bank Pty Ltd's operational requirements by considering the benefits of a longer cycle, implementing measures to reduce fatigue, and fostering equity and fair shift allocation. We value the collaborative approach taken by both parties and the open exchange of ideas throughout this negotiation process. We can come to an agreement that not only meets the needs of the bank and its employees but also sets a good example for the financial services industry as a whole by working together.
Directed Annual Leave
We want to express our appreciation for your open-minded approach to this discussion. You've shown understanding when considering the unique situation of our part-time and casual employees, and we can't stress enough how important that is, however further discussions has highlighted the need to support the women in the workforce that make up 65% of workers
We value your receptiveness to the leave conditions for part-time employees. It shows a commitment to fair working conditions for all. As for casual employees, we understand their unique employment terms, including the 25% loading on their hourly rate.
We appreciate your perspective on a four-week notice period for leave, taking into account Premier Bank Pty Ltd's operational needs. We believe this is not flexible enough for employees. Taking into account the unpredictable nature of life. With a 65% workforce of women balancing work and home, we still think a slightly shorter, three-week notice period could work better for everyone especially with those balancing a family. It would allow for more flexibility in our employees' lives without causing any major disruption to business operations and we are firmly committed to this.
Lastly, the issue of unused leave days. Your suggestion of allowing five days without penalty seems fair. Balancing the operations aspect of the business is difficult and whilst also taking employees into account is delicate and should be treated accordingly. However, because of this, and your willingness to work with a more appropriate solution, we would like to inform you that we have agreed to the five day period.
Our aim in all of this is to create a workspace that caters to the needs of everyone, from the full-time staff to the part-timers and casual employees. We believe that by increasing job satisfaction through a better balance between home and work, operations will run smoother which also means things are more productive.
Work-from-Home
We, the union team, are happy that we have agreed to not be contacted outside of work and the ability to work from home. We also are happy to hear that all employees who work from home will be compensated for all office Equipment from the time they clock on and the time they clock off.
We the union team would like to bring forward that the management allow the employees to clock off when scheduled hours end and that the employees not to be contacted as the management team suggest that the employees be available for emergencies.
A workplace emergency only applies if an incident that puts your workers, clients, or the public in danger; poses a disruption risk to your business's operation; or results in property damage is considered a workplace emergency. We believe the definition of workplace emergency may be misunderstood that it should be something that threatens the employees but not something like a ‘deadline’ and may abuse the employees from clocking off from work and contacting the employees outside of work hours. As a bank the union believes that there won’t be any workplace emergency that the other employees cannot handle and if the employees who work in the office are not to be contacted outside the office/work hours the same should apply for employees working from home. This is considered as unfair for the employees who work from home and that they are being treated differently.
The union team can realize if an urgent work-related circumstance comes up, but we still believe it is unfair for employees who work from home to be available. We will only accept that the employees keep their phone on and answer calls, but they shouldn’t be required to answer any emails or be required to complete any work outside of work hours as it disrupts the work life balance of employees because these are not considered as workplace emergencies. As in other countries there is a law that has banned contacting employees outside of work to respect personal boundaries. As Australia doesn’t have a law that enforces that we would like to implement a clause that does something similar. We propose a counteroffer that the employees will keep their phones on but not required to complete any work outside of work hours and not be able to attend any meetings outside of work hours.
As the management has stated ‘that employees have obligations to their families and to themselves outside of the workplace’. We require them to get the same treatment as the people in the office and work from home employees for after hour availability.
We expect the employees to keep their phones on but not be required to complete any work outside work hours even though they will be being paid. We believe it’ll disrupt the work life balance of the employees and be seen as unfair treatment and cause pressure, tension and fear of being terminated if not being available after work hours. We will agree to your proposal of working extra hours a maximum of 2 hours but the employees who work from the office should also be required to work extra hours and this will provide equality.
Additionally, our union team would like to suggest a provision prohibiting career advancement favoring employees who operate from offices over those who work from home, as it has been noticed that work from home workers are 38% less inclined to be awarded bonuses, receive low performance reviews, and advance through the ranks more gradually than those who work in office environments. Employers have been observed to have a prejudice against remote workers because it is more challenging for managers to directly observe the work that work from home employees are in fact doing than it is for office workers. Because of the absence of awareness when working from home, it is frequently believed that work from home workers are rarely working or possibly aren't working at all.
We look forward to continuing our discussions to reach a mutually beneficial agreement that serves the best interests of all parties involved and maintains our commitment to the negotiation process.
Kind Regard Members Benefit Union
Reply Quote Grade as ReadThread:NegotiationPost:RE: NegotiationAuthor:📷 Abdul MahroofPosted Date:29 May 2023 1:39 PMStatus:Published
To the Members Benefit Union,
Thank you for your letter outlining the proposed changes to the multi-week roster cycle, annual leave provision, and working-from-home privileges for employees. We value the union team's thoughtful considerations and recognise the significance of reaching a fair and mutually beneficial agreement.

1. Members Benefit Union (MBU) acknowledges Premier Bank Pty Ltd's proposal for a four-week cycle with an average of 38 hours per week. We understand the bank's operational requirements and the desire for work-life balance. However, we still believe that a five-week cycle would better address the concerns of employee fatigue and burnout.

In a longer cycle, employees would have more consecutive days off, allowing for better rest and recovery. This would contribute to their overall well-being and productivity. We suggest exploring ways to effectively manage fatigue within a five-week cycle, such as implementing additional rest periods or providing flexibility in shift assignments.
Regarding the pattern of rotation, we agree that a rotating shift schedule can provide variety and prevent monotony. By considering both employee preferences and operational needs, we can strike a balance that accommodates the requirements of Premier Bank Pty Ltd while ensuring employee satisfaction.
To address equity and fairness, we support the proposed shift allocation system that considers factors such as seniority, employee preferences, and skill sets. However, we recommend including regular reviews of the allocation system to address any imbalances and make necessary adjustments based on employee feedback. This would ensure transparency and maintain a fair distribution of shifts over time.
In terms of change and implementation, effective communication and training are crucial. We appreciate Premier Bank Pty Ltd's commitment to developing a comprehensive communication plan and conducting training sessions. We also encourage the establishment of a support system to address any challenges that may arise during the transition.
Let's continue the negotiation process, considering the benefits of a longer cycle and finding ways to mitigate fatigue while maintaining operational efficiency. By collaborating and valuing the input of both parties, we can reach an agreement that promotes employee well-being and meets Premier Bank Pty Ltd's operational requirements.
2)
As per your request, we will also make certain conditions based upon annual leave. We are happy to consider annual leave conditions mentioned by part time employees, but with considerations to casual employees, we won’t be able to make this happen. Casual employees are able to receive a 25% loading as per the casuals’ hourly rate.
In relation to the notice period of leave, we also need to consider the workload here at Premier Bank Pty Ltd, considering that a roster cycle is every 4 weeks, we can settle on 4 weeks notice period which also allows us to find someone else to cover that specific position, as well as role.
As per the mention in regards to the unused days without penalty, management needs to consider potential financial impacts, as well as staffing and operational needs. To your terms, we are understanding that with all these factors in comparison to your request, we are looking at meeting in the middle with a week (5) days which we are able to find a staff member to cover for those hours missing.
3) Working from home: We appreciate your attention to the employee's ability to work remotely and the option to avoid work-related contact outside of normal business hours. We hold both of these liberties in high regard. We will have completed our review of your suggestion regarding the ability of employees to cease communication outside of normal business hours, and we thank you for requesting that we do so. We are aware that employees have obligations to their families and to themselves outside of the workplace. We are aware that interacting with them outside of their normal work hours may cause them unnecessary tension, which may have a negative impact on their mental health and work performance. We prioritize the physical and mental health of our employees because we are a prominent financial institution. Despite this, there is always a chance that certain employees will be required to remain at work beyond the conclusion of their regularly scheduled shift due to unforeseen circumstances. Some employees will be required to remain on call outside of their normal working hours to facilitate the above-mentioned scenarios, such as emergencies and staffing shortages. We value our employees who sacrifice their outside commitments to be on call. For this, we will adhere to Section 18.3 (b), which states that employees on standby must be paid $19.95 per day from Monday to Friday and $40.74 per day from Saturday to Sunday, as well as Clause 20, which specifies a two-hour minimum payment for overtime. In regards to your request for compensation for the expense of working at home, we have carefully evaluated and analysed and decided to cover the essential needs of the work expenses. The Work Health and Safety requirements and equipment required to operate the work will be covered .However, in response to the request to cover expenses for items such as a standing workstation, an ergonomic mesh office chair, and other similar items, we will cover a portion of the costs associated with these items. In addition, we will pay for the employee's internet and phone service from the time they begin working until the time they finish.
We appreciate your proposals once more, and we look forwards to continuing the negotiation process.
Sincerely,
Management Premier Bank Pty Ltd
Reply Quote Grade as ReadThread:NegotiationPost:RE: NegotiationAuthor:📷 Jalal RahmanPosted Date:24 May 2023 9:06 PMStatus:Published
Dear Management
In the discussion cycle, Premier Bank Pty Ltd and the Members Benefit Union (MBU) need to settle on the conditions under which the multi-week roster cycle will operate. Right now, full-time representatives work 38 hours out of every week distributed across five shifts of 7.6 hours each. The agreed-upon strategy is to keep the 38 nominal hours per week but to make sure the hours are distributed out over several weeks.
The following considerations should be made in order to reach an agreement on this provision:

1. Length of the Cycle: The length of the multi-week roster cycle must be discussed and decided by both parties. During the negotiation process, things like operational requirements, employee preferences, and work-life balance should be taken into consideration.
   
2. Roster Issues: Other roster issues must be addressed in addition to the cycle length. This might include figuring out the pattern of rotation, how many days off, how you like to work, and any particular requirements for different roles or departments.
   
3. Equity and fairness: It is essential to guarantee that the new roster cycle will continue to be equitable and fair to all employees. Contemplations like equivalent distribution of attainable shifts, limiting weariness and overtime, and giving satisfactory rest periods ought to be essential for the negotiation.
   
4. Change and Execution: The process of switching from the current roster system to the new multi-week cycle should be covered in the negotiation. It should involve talking about communication, training, and any changes that need to be made to keep things as smooth as possible during the transition avoiding most disruptions.
   

The needs of the employees, the bank's operational requirements, and the objective of coming to an agreement that pleases all stakeholders should all be taken into consideration when both parties approach the negotiation in good faith. A fair and practical provision can be agreed upon by addressing these aspects of the multiple-week roster cycle.
2) Taking the annual leave provision into account, considering what we have examined, we propose that part-time and casual employees receive four weeks of paid leave, in conjunction with full-time employees. We suggest reducing the notice period for leave requests from five weeks to three weeks, providing employees with more flexibility. To allow for more flexibility in using accrued leave, we propose making an adjustment to have 10 unused days without penalty. What this will mean is fairness, equality, and work-life balance for all employees. We believe these changes will benefit both employees and the organization by promoting well-being and maintaining operational efficiency. We believe this is the best interest for the both of us, and moving forward we can come to a conclusion on this provision
3) The union team proposes that working from home employee’s freedom to stop communicating about their jobs outside of scheduled working hours through email, chat rooms, and online interactions, is one crucial right the union team advises. Section 65 of the Fair Labour Standards Act, which states that employees are permitted to propose changes to their work arrangements. Considering your proposal for 3 days in office and 2 days at home, we have examined the advantage of working from home allowing less time commuting to work and working from home also improved work life balance for many of the employees.
Employees shouldn't have to work past their contractually specified time frames or to be accessible for job-related communications once they have completed their contractually required hours of work. This involves participating in conferences or replying to emails out of their scheduled working hours. The union team wants to advocate for all employees to be compensated for any costs needed to maintain workplace health and safety at home. This could include purchasing items like standing desks, ergonomic mesh office chair, and other similar things (Cheslaw, 2021). The union team also suggests that the employer pay for all essential tools, internet, telephone service, all stationary that is provided at work and other essentials when working from home.
We look forward to hearing from you
Kind Regard Members Benefit Union
Reply Quote Grade as ReadThread:NegotiationPost:RE: NegotiationAuthor:📷 Abdul MahroofPosted Date:19 May 2023 8:11 PMStatus:Published

Author: Abdul Mahroof Date: Friday, 19 May 2023 8:04:43 PM AEST Subject: NegotiationTo the Members Benefit Union, We the management of Premier Bank Pty Ltd are initiating the negotiations concerning our three main provisions that need to be resolved. Multi-week Roster Cycle 2. Annual Leave 3.Working from Home Arrangements Length of the Cycle: After careful consideration and feedback from employees, agree on a four-week cycle where the nominal weekly hours of 38 will be distributed evenly. This means that employees will work an average of 38 hours per week over the four-week period. Shift Distribution: Establish a fair and balanced distribution of shifts within the cycle. Take into account factors such as peak business hours, employee preferences, and operational requirements. Consider implementing a rotating shift schedule that allows employees to experience different shifts and avoid repetitive patterns. Rest Periods: Set clear guidelines for rest periods and breaks between shifts to ensure employees receive sufficient rest and recovery time. Adhere to relevant labor laws and regulations regarding rest periods. Aim to provide consecutive days off within the cycle to promote work-life balance and well-being. Shift Allocation Method: Implement a fair and transparent system for shift allocation. Consider a combination of factors, such as seniority, employee preferences, and skill set, to ensure fairness and equal opportunities. Provide a mechanism for employees to express their shift preferences and consider them when creating the roster, while balancing the operational needs of the organisation. Flexibility and Adjustments: Allow for flexibility within the roster cycle to accommodate unforeseen circumstances or individual employee needs. Establish a process for employees to request shift swaps, time off, or adjustments to the roster with reasonable notice. Encourage open communication and collaboration between employees and management to address scheduling conflicts and ensure smooth operations. Communication and Transparency: Establish clear communication channels to keep employees informed about the roster cycle, any changes, and updates. Utilize digital tools or platforms to provide real-time access to the roster, making it easier for employees to plan their schedules. Ensure transparency in the allocation process and provide clear explanations for any deviations from employee preferences. Review and Evaluation: Schedule regular reviews and evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the multi-week roster cycle. Gather feedback from employees and management regarding its impact on productivity, employee satisfaction, and work-life balance. Use the feedback to make necessary adjustments and improvements to the roster system. (2) Regarding annual leave for employees working on a full time basis; 4 weeks of paid leave will be allocated to those employees who work continuously throughout the year. For part-time and casual employees working from the multi-week roster cycle you will be eligible for an additional (4) days. All annual leave will be paid in accordance to your previously agreed upon wage. Leave must be certified by your scheduling manager 5 weeks prior to it’s commencement or it may not qualify as paid leave. Any unused leave will rollover into next years cycle with the understanding it does not qualify as excessive. “Excessive Leave” is any amount of accumulated leave that has not had a minimum period of 14 days used in over a year, not including holidays. An example is someone who has been working with us for over a year has accrued their 4 weeks but not taken any time off. People in that situation will be directed by management to use their leave, as we’ve decided it is in the best interest of our organization. (3) Regarding work-from-home arrangements, we will implement and adhere to Section 65 of the Fair Labour Standards Act, which states that employees are permitted to propose changes to their work arrangements. We make every effort to facilitate them because we recognise that many employees have other commitments outside of work. For instance, parents, a career, old age, domestic violence, or assisting an immediate relative. As Premier Bank Pty Ltd, we recognise that our employees have to deal with situations and obligations outside the workplace, so allowing them to work from home will provide them with comfort and commitment. There will be three days in the office and then two days at home. This arrangement will allow employees to experience both the office and home environments. The new EBA will permit employees to determine when they work from home and in the office. This will be effective as it will give employees the opportunities to experience the best of both worlds. For instance, working at home will give employees opportunities to have a flexible work environment whereas an office will provide employees with opportunities to network with other coworkers. Another thing that will be implemented in the EBA is work health safety for working at home as directed by workplace health and safety 2011 (WHS). We know that there is a risk that will arise from working from home. For instance, Physical hazards such as slips. As Premier Bank we will eliminate WHS risk that can arise from home by implementing a policy and training the employee will eliminate the possible chance of facing risk in the workplace . We await your response to our proposal, Best Regards, Management Premier Bank Pty Ltd

Reply Quote Grade as ReadThread:NegotiationPost:NegotiationAuthor:📷 Abdul MahroofPosted Date:19 May 2023 8:04 PMStatus:Published
To the Members Benefit Union,
We the management of Premier Bank Pty Ltd are initiating the negotiations concerning our three main provisions that need to be resolved.

1. Multi-week Roster Cycle
2. Annual Leave
3. Working from Home Arrangements
4. Length of the Cycle: After careful consideration and feedback from employees, agree on a four-week cycle where the nominal weekly hours of 38 will be distributed evenly. This means that employees will work an average of 38 hours per week over the four-week period.

Shift Distribution: Establish a fair and balanced distribution of shifts within the cycle. Take into account factors such as peak business hours, employee preferences, and operational requirements. Consider implementing a rotating shift schedule that allows employees to experience different shifts and avoid repetitive patterns.
Rest Periods: Set clear guidelines for rest periods and breaks between shifts to ensure employees receive sufficient rest and recovery time. Adhere to relevant labor laws and regulations regarding rest periods. Aim to provide consecutive days off within the cycle to promote work-life balance and well-being.
Shift Allocation Method: Implement a fair and transparent system for shift allocation. Consider a combination of factors, such as seniority, employee preferences, and skill set, to ensure fairness and equal opportunities. Provide a mechanism for employees to express their shift preferences and consider them when creating the roster, while balancing the operational needs of the organisation.
Flexibility and Adjustments: Allow for flexibility within the roster cycle to accommodate unforeseen circumstances or individual employee needs. Establish a process for employees to request shift swaps, time off, or adjustments to the roster with reasonable notice. Encourage open communication and collaboration between employees and management to address scheduling conflicts and ensure smooth operations.
Communication and Transparency: Establish clear communication channels to keep employees informed about the roster cycle, any changes, and updates. Utilize digital tools or platforms to provide real-time access to the roster, making it easier for employees to plan their schedules. Ensure transparency in the allocation process and provide clear explanations for any deviations from employee preferences.
Review and Evaluation: Schedule regular reviews and evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the multi-week roster cycle. Gather feedback from employees and management regarding its impact on productivity, employee satisfaction, and work-life balance. Use the feedback to make necessary adjustments and improvements to the roster system.
(2) Regarding annual leave for employees working on a full time basis; 4 weeks of paid leave will be allocated to those employees who work continuously throughout the year. For part-time and casual employees working from the multi-week roster cycle you will be eligible for an additional (4) days. All annual leave will be paid in accordance to your previously agreed upon wage. Leave must be certified by your scheduling manager 5 weeks prior to it’s commencement or it may not qualify as paid leave. Any unused leave will rollover into next years cycle with the understanding it does not qualify as excessive. “Excessive Leave” is any amount of accumulated leave that has not had a minimum period of 14 days used in over a year, not including holidays. An example is someone who has been working with us for over a year has accrued their 4 weeks but not taken any time off. People in that situation will be directed by management to use their leave, as we’ve decided it is in the best interest of our organization.
(3) Regarding work-from-home arrangements, we will implement and adhere to Section 65 of the Fair Labour Standards Act, which states that employees are permitted to propose changes to their work arrangements. We make every effort to facilitate them because we recognise that many employees have other commitments outside of work. For instance, parents, a career, old age, domestic violence, or assisting an immediate relative. As Premier Bank Pty Ltd, we recognise that our employees have to deal with situations and obligations outside the workplace, so allowing them to work from home will provide them with comfort and commitment. There will be three days in the office and then two days at home. This arrangement will allow employees to experience both the office and home environments. The new EBA will permit employees to determine when they work from home and in the office. This will be effective as it will give employees the opportunities to experience the best of both worlds. For instance, working at home will give employees opportunities to have a flexible work environment whereas an office will provide employees with opportunities to network with other coworkers. Another thing that will be implemented in the EBA is work health safety for working at home as directed by workplace health and safety 2011 (WHS). We know that there is a risk that will arise from working from home. For instance, Physical hazards such as slips. As Premier Bank we will eliminate WHS risk that can arise from home by implementing a policy and training the employee will eliminate the possible chance of facing risk in the workplace .
We await your response to our proposal,
Best Regards,
Management Premier Bank Pty Ltd

Sorry ya’ll this is a long one: TLDR at bottom
So I posted a little bit ago about having a boundary talk with my JNMIL that went about as expected….. not well. She didn’t speak to us for two weeks as a “punishment”. She reached out to DH to say happy Memorial Day and see if we could still watch her dog (yes of course).
Then I made a post about how when she came over after the talk (I was not home which is fine) she parked down the street because she “didn’t know if parking closer was crossing a boundary” and other silly things like that. Read the old posts for more details.
You might be asking why this update is so late…. I had the wrong Saturday in my head for the gender reveal. So it just happened today.
JNMIL and I pulled up at the same (oh great…..) and this was our first time seeing or speaking to each other since the boundary talk.
I am tending to baby boy in the backseat and getting him into the baby carrier. She says hi and comes over which is nice but also I really don’t want to talk to her. I am nice to her. She says she had a gift for baby boy because she can’t buy a gift for one grand baby without getting one for all…. (Love bombing and she does this all the time.)
Once inside she is pleasant enough but I don’t spark a conversation with her as there are much more interesting and kind people who I can catch up with and who also have kiddos around the same age. JNMIL is not talking to many people but watches her other grandson running around and when he is out of sight she watches me with my baby boy. Weirds me out but I can let this one go pretty easily. It’s not the first time .
She asks to hold baby boy (I had him out of the carrier because I had just changed him) I said yes. A few mins later we are across the group from one another and she kisses my baby boy! DH and I have both asked her many times not to do this. My pulse skyrockets and I know I should call her out but I would have to be loud across the group and I chickened out which I regret. I am still working on speaking up for myself and my baby but I am getting much better.
A few mins later baby boy sees me and starts crying for me. JNMIL keeps turning him away from me but he keeps turning back to me and crying. So naturally I go over there and scoop him up. JNMIL sprints out of her seat over to her other grandson. I have never seen this lady move so fast. Weird but whatever I have my kid and she isn’t bothering me.
After the reveal, (it’s a girl!!) baby boy and I are headed home. We say our goodbyes to all and JNMIL has the longest goodbye and the leans in and kisses baby boy again! I immediately said “JNMIL, no kissing the baby.” She says “oh” and walks away.
SIL (the pregnant one) walks me out and says how JNMIL does the same thing to her son and that she had to have her husband (my BIL/DH’s brother) have a talk with JNMIL about their behavior expectations for JNMIL at their gender reveal party. So you can see JNMIL is a problem to both of her sons and their wives.
I am looking for advice because JNMIL did break a boundary but it seems so small to cut her off for a period of time…. I don’t know it extreme for this scenario. She was nicer than usual and seemed to put some effort in. I feel like I want to go NC for three weeks if she does it again but am I being weak?
Haven’t talked to DH about it yet as he is at work…. What do you guys think?
TLDR: After boundary talk, JNMIL kisses baby boy. Do we cut contact for three weeks?
Sorry for any errors, on mobile
EDIT: SIL is pregnant, not me! Gender reveal was for her!

He's just a loser I gave too much of my time and energy to, gave too much of myself to.
His lying, cheating, misleading, disrespect, lack of empathy, lack of concern or care, game playing, manipulation, using me, shallowness, selfishness, self-preoccupation, constantly flux and shifting feeling and intention --all of these things and more make him a loser. He's objectively a gross prick. A gross prick incapable of real emotional depth, he's incapable of sincerity, he doesn't know love or what it is to be genuine or to take genuine invested interest and concern in another. He doesn't know it. It's utterly foreign to him.
All he knows is the superficial and the shallow, anything he ever experiences beyond that is purely the indulgence of his projected secluded self-fantasies. No real person ever holds his heart or his mind.
I saw him say himself- that he consumes women like TV shows, like books. Like a tale to consume and then it's on to another. He's no more invested in the experience of a woman than a normal person is in a film beyond the two hours they consume it.
It's superficial, it's escapism, it's not real. It's whimsical, it's flight of fancy. And the minute, the minute reality penetrates it, it rapidly dulls. As soon as a woman is no longer a suitable canvas for his fantasy, or when his fantasy is somehow otherwise exhausted and no longer novel, it's like fruit turned to ash- he perceives suddenly becoming 'bored' of them. Because nothing deep, nothing of substance, ever takes hold.
Which is part of how he deludes himself that women 'fall too hard for him'... No, it's just that when he experiences them suddenly as boring, unsuitable, worn for use, it's like ripping the ground from beneath them and he registers their insecure responses to mean that he must just be so amazing, he must be such a prize. It never crosses his mind that they experienced a growing of emotional depth that he never did. So when without warning they are tossed aside like his broken toy, they cry out to understand what the hell happened, unable to see at least initially, that they simply became a broken toy. It's true of me, it's undoubtedly true of those several women he mentioned to me being 'obsessive' in his past.
Treat woman after woman like toys to break, toys to grow bored of, after months of toying and lying to them, and you just may experience them as desperate for understanding, as 'obsessive'. Maybe he desires this, perhaps he may even desire this consciously. He can shelve these experiences within a grandiose narrative- he's just so great, that he can cause that desperation in others. Doesn't cross his mind that emotional abuse will get people desperate, confused, obsessive, and it speaks nothing well of his character that he has been able to elicit that in several women, it says quite the opposite. It says that he's a loser. A loser incapable of love. A loser destined for a life of emptiness.

How the h*ll do people think it's F'ing ok to dump their pets somewhere and leave? We have had people in my area go to a park or our in the country to dump their pets they no longer want. This really pisses me off beyond words! I so want karma to hit them hard! Poor animals dont know what's going on and why they are being left behind!
Also those nuts who move and leave them behind. Makes me cry and feel rage! Why, why would they do such a cruel and heartless thing?