Howard Dean pens op ed in Thursday Wash Post: Vote against Senate HCR bill

Damn, Howard Dean seems to have more backbone that the White House and the Congress combined. Is someone preparing himself for a run for office in 3 years? An op ed in the Post means Dean is serious about challenging the current party leadership on how they are mismanaging health care reform.

Hillary must be hitting her head against the wall.

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these....

In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont, we have accomplished universal health care for children younger than 18 and real insurance reform -- which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.

Read the rest of this post...

Insurance companies can charge you up to 50% more for pre-existing conditions under HCR bill, says former CIGNA exec

Former CIGNA executive Wendell Potter on Keith Olbermann's show tonight:

With pre-existing conditions that would be outlawed. But the way that the insurance companies will get around that will be, they would be enabled to charge people who have certain "health factors," as it's called in this bill, up to 50% more, if you've got high blood pressure, or high cholesterol really. So that is just one way to get around doing that.

WTF?

Read the rest of this post...

Move over Lieberman, now the National Right to Life Committee gets a veto over Health Care Reform

Ben Nelson is going to get whatever he wants. Lieberman showed that. The Democrats need Nelson to pass a bill, unless they get Olympia Snowe, and so far she's reportedly not being very helpful. I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that Rahm, on behalf of Obama, isn't going to pay Harry Reid another visit and tell him to chuck pro-choice women under the bus.

So now we've moved from President Lieberman to President National Right to Life:

Senators cornered Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) throughout the day, aiming to sway him. Nelson received draft language from Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) of an amendment to tighten restrictions on federal financing of abortion. The amendment would segregate private funds that cover abortions from public subsidies for health insurance.

“We’re looking at it,” said Nelson, who indicated that he was also waiting on feedback from anti-abortion groups.

But Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said Wednesday night of the Casey language, “This proposal would break from the long-established principles of the Hyde Amendment by providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion on demand. This is entirely unacceptable.”

Appeasement doesn't work. If you show serial weakness, which this White House and this Congress do on a regular basis, you will be repeatedly challenged and taken advantage of. This is why so many of us "non-wonks" are so livid about the President and Harry Reid caving on the Senate health care reform bill over and over again. This is about much more than health care reform. It's about Democrats caving now and in the future on every single issue we care about. It's about whether Democrats even run our party any more. Read the rest of this post...

ABC News interviews the President about health care reform

Obama on increased competition driving down costs:

Number one -- and something that hasn't been discussed, partly because there's been some broad-based agreement on this -- we're setting up an exchange in which you've got 30 million people and small businesses who are now able to pool their buying power and negotiate, essentially, with insurance companies by choosing the best price from a range of different plans, forcing insurance companies to compete the same way they compete for the business of federal employees. That drives costs down.

But they won't compete because Congress didn't want to repeal the insurance companies' anti-trust exemption. They can simply collude to keep prices up.

There was a terrific article in the New Yorker just about a week ago by a doctor, Atul Gawande, who pointed out that there is not an idea out there for cost control that is not in this health care bill.

I thought the public option was the best idea that was out there for cost control? And I quote CNN quoting the White House in August:

"The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans, and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market," White House aide Linda Douglass said in a written statement.

"He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."

And I quote our President this past July:

What I’ve asked my health care team to do is to look at what evidence we have that this could provide the kind of competition that drives or helps to promote insurance reform and helps to include quality and drive down cost. If I can see some some evidence that this could work, then I’d be happy to consider it. But I will tell you that, as I’ve been very clear about before, I continue to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.

Never mind.

And the goal here is to create a system in which people try things out. Suddenly, somebody says, "You know what? We're saving money. The hospital here is saving money and reducing errors because we've got a protocol or a checklist of procedures in terms of how doctors and nurses work together to deal with a patient in a more effective way." Another hospital down the road starts learning from that, and you start seeing these changes cascade through the system.

That's nice for hospitals, but does anyone really think that hospitals are going to pass those cost savings on to consumers? The same way that airlines have passed on their cost savings, from oil prices going down, by rescinding those new baggage fees?

OBAMA: I think that what we have right now in the Senate is a situation where the opposition party has made a political decision that we are going to say no to everything, we're going to not be at the table, we're going to just not get involved. What that -- what that...

Well, yes, when you put practically no pressure on the opposition party to support this thing, when you coddle them for months and months, when you do the minimum possible to build public support for a specific plan, when you cave to specific Republicans who challenge you (such as changing the legislation to make it more anti-immigrant to meet the concerns of Joe "You Lie!" Wilson), when you ignore your own party and your own campaign promises for months but suddenly do whatever Joe Lieberman wants because he has the balls to tell you to take a hike, it's no wonder the Republicans have adopted a strategy of obfuscation. You have made it clear since the beginning of your administration that when challenged by Republicans or conservative Democrats, you cave.

Well, I think it's hard. And -- and -- and there's got to be a sense sometimes that we're willing to rise above our particular interests, our particular ideas in order to get things done. Right now, that culture has, I think, broken down over the last several years, and one of my jobs over the next three years is to try to see if we can revive that. But that's tougher than I would have liked.

Yes, when you do the minimum amount of work possible and are afraid to ever stake out a position on anything, it is tough to get anything done in politics. As in life.

This will be the single most important piece of domestic legislation that's passed since Social Security.

You're administration isn't acting like it. If you fight like this for the single most important piece of legislation in nearly a century, God forbid what happens with the rest of your and our agenda.

There's a reason why seven presidents and seven Congresses failed to get this done. It is really hard.

Don't even. Read the rest of this post...

The other Senate independent speaks, Bernie Sanders (VT): "As of this point, I’m not voting for the bill."

For the past week, we've heard a lot from Senate Independent Joe Lieberman. Tonight, via Think Progress, we learned that the other Independent, Bernie Sanders, has weighed in on the health care bill:

"As of this point, I’m not voting for the bill."

The White House dismissed and trashed the concerns of Vermonter Howard Dean. They have to deal with Vermonter Bernie Sanders. Read the rest of this post...

Royal Bank of Scotland CEO complains of "politicization"

Too funny for words. What a coincidence that he only makes a payout if the share price is higher. In other words, he's ready to have everyone shut up so he can get back to the risks that brought us here in the first place. As long as he gets to shovel money around and keep the gamblers, he's fine. Lovely people, those bankers.

Referring to demands by the government that it should have a right to veto the "quantum and structure" of the bank's 2009 bonus pool, Stephen Hester said: "The process of the politicisation of RBS is damaging to our business and to the taxpayer interest."

He noted that the RBS share price had stood at 50p before the EU demanded a draconian restructuring of the bank in return for £54bn of state aid, and before strictures on bonuses had been imposed as the price for joining the government's asset protection scheme (APS). "More than £15bn has been lost [in the bank's stock market value] due to politicisation," he told shareholders at a special meeting to approve RBS's entry into the scheme. The shares are now trading at about 32p.

Sir Philip Hampton, chairman, insisted he did not know how the new long-term incentive pay plan for the board would be structured, but City shareholders have been expecting a new scheme to be devised as the bank is forced to shrink dramatically by the EU. Hester's deal for 2009 caused controversy because it pays more than £9m if the shares rise above 70p.

Oops. No payday, I guess. Join the crowd, old boy. Read the rest of this post...

Another Democrat finally finds his inner backbone.... to attack Howard Dean

Wouldn't it be neat if all of these Democrats on the Hill and in the White House could ever find their big boy voice to go after people who DON'T support the President's agenda? It seems the only people who get yelled at in this town are those who simply want the President to keep his promises. Read the rest of this post...

Dear President Obama

David Shuster of MSNBC says, linking to this piece, that "this sentiment on the left is a big problem for the White House." From Manhattan Butterfly blog:

Dear President Obama,

I just got an email from you asking me to contact my Senators to vote for your piece of crap health care “reform” bill.

The link to reply was –like your administration – defective and so here I am replying through your website and putting it up on my blog for the world to read if they care to....

I am just one of a vast number of disillusioned and furious progressives you have managed to alienate in less than a year. These people like me voted for you, donated to your campaign and worked for your election because we wanted real change. You have bitterly disappointed us.

Glen Greenwald of salon.com got it right. This piece of garbage that you are calling “reform” is exactly what you wanted. It’s a gift to the insurance cartel and big pharma. What’s more, it’s an insult to my intelligence to think that I am fooled into thinking this is some step forward instead of what it really is: worse than what we have now.

You are not “mybarackobama.” That person was apparently an apparition. The reality is quite the letdown.

Read the rest of this post...

Good rebuttal to Nate Silver on the "benefits" of Senate HRC bill

From "A Night Light" blog:

Darcy Burner is absolutely right when she writes "affordable coverage for everyone: FAIL." Silver is absolutely wrong when he says that "we can debate whether $9,000 is 'affordable' for a family of four earning $54,000" - we can? Really? - or when he says the individual mandate penalty is "not very harsh." I'm astonished that anyone grounded in the real world could believe that these numbers (and those for higher middle-class earners) are not "harsh," unaffordable, and even potentially devastating for middle-class people trying to get by in this economy. That's craziness of the flying-rodent-feces variety.

Silver is most off-base in the area that arguably matter most in the long run: political context, strategy and tactic. He falls right into the trap that the Democratic leadership has set for progressives - the belief that, even with weeks to go in the process, it's either this bill or nothing. That's simply not the case. Yes, I saw a previous post where he argued that this outcome was inevitable given Senate math. But it's only inevitable if you assume a) no targeted use of reconciliation, and b) that the "centrist" Senators were inevitably going to be opposed to a bill with better provisions. To believe that, you also have to assume continued lack of strong leadership from Reid and the White House, together with continued lack of progressive pressure on them to step up.

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

The Senate bill Silver so admires places enormous burdens on middle-class families, while going easy on high-earners and employers. The overall combination of mandates and weak cost controls shapes up to be political suicide for Democrats. It will hurt Democratic candidates in precisely those parts of the country where they can least afford the damage, like the Midwest. (This survey offers a preview.) And it's not too late to fix it.

That gets us to strategy. The day may come when the Silver argument needs to be deployed - namely, when a decision must be made on whether the final bill being voted onbetter than nothing. But that day isn't here yet. There's still time to change it, either in the Senate or House. Instead of accepting this bill as the best they can get, progressives should keep the heat on the Democratic leadership to fix it. That means eliminating the excise tax in favor of the House high-earner proposal, pressing for a robust public option, and pushing for stronger subsidies.

Doing anything else would be crazy.

Read the rest of this post...

Jon Stewart on the top bankers missing the White House meeting

As only Jon Stewart can do it:
Read the rest of this post...

White House thanks Lieberman for blocking President's reform promise, but now criticizes Howard Dean for defending it

Joe Lieberman, who held a legislative gun to President Obama's head and threatened to kill all of health care reform, endangering the Democrats' prospects for holding on to control of Congress in the next election and endangering the President's chances at being re-elected, got personally thanked by President Obama yesterday. Thanked for trying to kill health care reform, thanked for shilling for the insurance industry. Howard Dean, who is simply advocating for the President's own campaign promise, is now being dissed by the White House.

The only people the White House ever seem to find the backbone to criticize are Democrats who support the President's own campaign promises. If you're a Republican or a conservative Democrat who slaps the President in the face, he bends over backwards to make you like him again.

From Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake:

MSNBC's MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I won’t name names, but I heard it from several people in the Administration: Howard Dean, very not pleased, with Dr. Dean speaking out about health care reform and this plan.

Savannah Guthrie: Yeah, very irritated. Yes, isn’t it fascinating they don’t seem to be too angry at Lieberman, they’re reserving their fervor for Howard Dean, but actually, one senior official who I talked to this morning paid the highest insult which was to call him irrelevant to the entire health care debate. You know he kind of had his moment in the sun in the last week when this Medicare expansion looked like it was going to be the thing that broke the logjam between the progressives in the party and the moderates, but, of course, because of Lieberman, the Medicare expansion is gone, and now Dean is having what one official called “a tantrum.”

And they think it’s just not helpful, but they say he’s irrelevant because, bottom line is, even though he was meeting yesterday with all the Democrats, a lot of liberals did blow off steam, there’s a lot of frustration, they’re annoyed that the public option is gone, that then they compromised to do the Medicare extension, now it’s gone. At the end of the day, the moderates are holding sway over this bill, but at the end of the day the President’s been able to hold them in line and they think progressives will be with them.

Howard Dean was being talked about as a secretary for Health and Human Services. The man is an MD and a health care expert. He knows far more about health care and reform than President Obama or Rahm Emmanuel. And Dean says the bill needs to be killed. Read the rest of this post...

Howard Dean: "We've gotten to the stage where passing any bill is a victory... this is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG"

"This is an insurance company's dream, this bill." - Howard Dean, Dec 16, 09 on GMA. Dean repeats my concern that we're still screwed in the House-Senate conference, since the same four Democratic Senators are going to threaten to filibuster any conference report that is strengthened by the House bill. We are hostage to mediocrity. It's business as usual in this town, brought to you by the candidate who promised change.


(H/t DailyKos) Read the rest of this post...

Micah Sifry sees David Axelrod on a plane. Hilarity ensures.

Micah Sifry, cofounder of the Personal Democracy Forum (whose conference I recently attended in Barcelona), and editor of Tech President, ran into White House senior adviser David Axelrod on the shuttle yesterday from NYC to DC. God bless Micah. He did what far too many members of Congress and advocacy groups wouldn't dare.

It's not every morning that you run into one of the most powerful men in the country in relatively intimate and unguarded surroundings, so today as I was boarding the shuttle down to DC and saw White House senior advisor David Axelrod seated by a window just behind the first class section, I decided I had to seize the moment. My parents gave me "change the world" disease when I was young, after all, and I probably will never shake it.

The aisle was full in front of me anyway and thus I was literally standing across from him. Knowing I might only have a minute, I quickly pondered what to say.

"Is this 'change we can believe in'?" I asked. He didn't respond at first so I repeated the question to make clear I was talking to him. It was his slogan, after all, that he and the rest of the Obama '08 campaign, had offered to the nation...

Micah continues. Read the post. We need more of this. Read the rest of this post...

Labor considering opposing Senate HCR bill, while HCAN sells out

UPDATE: Looks like they're going to express disappointment, but not oppose.

Good for Labor. As for "Health Care for America Now," now that they've decided to support passage of this total cave by the President and Senator Reid, perhaps they should change their name to "Health Care for America, Next Time."

Two of the country's largest labor groups, the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, are each holding emergency executive meetings today to discuss whether they should support the latest round of health care compromises made by Senate Democrats.

Though there's no official word yet, early indications based on talks with various officials are that the groups will either formally oppose the legislation or, less dramatically, just not fight very hard to ensure its passage.

Labor leaders are fuming at the concessions that Democratic leadership made in the last few days to win the support of the caucus's most conservative members...

Here's hoping that SEIU and the AFL have more courage and principle than HCAN.

NB HCAN says they're simply support passage of the Senate bill so they can then fight for the good stuff in conference. A conference that increasingly looks like it won't even happen - they may just force the House to accept the Senate bill since, after all, Holy Joe and the other Dem sell-outs will threaten to filibuster if we improve the bill too much and hurt their friends in the insurance industry. Read the rest of this post...

House Dems want to avoid votes on "controversial bills" for gays, labor & Latinos next year

Next year is an election year, and Democrats are now officially in full freak out mode. Democrats in the House announced today that they won't touch any "controversial" legislation until and unless the Senate acts first. Among the list of "controversial" topics are gay issues, labor issues, and Latino issues -- specifically, immigration reform, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That pretty much sums up a good chunk of the Democratic base.

We could use some presidential leadership, but, we know not to expect that.

Don't say we didn't warn you. John has been saying for months that if we didn't get things done in 2009, nothing will happen in 2010 because it's an election year, and that 2011 is the beginning of the presidential primaries, and 2012 is a congressional and presidential election. Things will only get worse. That's just how the Hill usually works. They focus on elections in an election year. You know, those elections where they promise us that they'll pass our legislation if they get our votes and our money. The angst on the Hill seems even worse this year. 2009 has been consumed by health care reform -- and the way that issue has been mishandled by the White House and Hill leaders has left Democrats on the Hill squeamish about doing anything else.

Now we know for sure where we stand. We're "controversial." Si se puede. Or not.

We've got more on this development at AMERICAblog Gay. Read the rest of this post...

Lieberman open to running as a GOPer in 2012

It's good to be Joe Lieberman. He campaigned against Barack Obama, even speaking at the Republican convention, yet Barack Obama wanted to keep him in the Democratic caucus. He single-handedly weakened and tried to undermine the Senate health care bill, but gets thanked by the President. If he runs as a Republican, the Democrats will probably make him Majority Leader (assuming the Democrats still control the Senate in 2012.) And, Lieberman as the GOP candidate is a possibility:

Lieberman said he wasn't sure which party, if any, he would represent in his next election.

"I like being an independent, so that's definitely a possibility," the Connecticut senator said. "But I'd say all options are open."

He called running as a Republican "unlikely" but added that he wouldn't "foreclose any possibility."

Read the rest of this post...

Markos: Remove mandate, or kill this bill

Markos at DailyKos argues that the Senate health care bill should be killed, unless the individual mandate is removed. The individual mandate is the provision requiring every American to buy insurance, or face a stiff fine.

Markos raises the point that there is nothing in the bill to stop insurance companies from raising through the roof the rates they charge the new 30m people who currently don't have insurance, but will be forced to buy it under this legislation. But one point I hadn't thought of is that the legislation actually provides the insurance companies the incentive to do just that. Why? Because no matter the rate the insurance companies charge, the government will provide subsidies for poor people that will cover at least some of the premium. So all insurance companies have to do is keep increasing their rates, and the government will keep pumping in more and more money into the subsidies, and thus into the insurance companies' pockets (adding to our deficit). It's a total bail-out scam for the insurance companies, funded by Uncle Sam, and you and me.

Of course, the subsidies won't cover everyone 100%, so the part that's not covered will be a new federal tax on anyone who currently doesn't have health insurance and who isn't poor enough to get a 100% subsidy (as you'll be picking up the portion of the bill that the government isn't covering). And the tax will keep rising as the insurance companies keep raising their rates to get more and more federal subsidies.

It's an ugly scenario, and one that the insurance companies, not known for their ethics, will likely take advantage of. Here's a portion of Marko's post:

My take is that it's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status. It'd be like forcing everyone to attend baseball games, but instead of watching the Yankees, they were forced to watch the Kansas City Royals. Or Washington Nationals. It would effectively be a tax -- and a huge one -- paid directly to a private industry.

Without any mechanisms to control costs, this is yet another bailout for yet another reviled industry. Subsidies? Insurance companies are free to raise their rates to absorb that cash. More money for subsidies? More rate increases, as well as more national debt. Don't expect Lieberman and his ilk to care. They're in it for their industry pals.

If you want a similar model, watch how universities increase tuition to absorb increased financial aid opportunities. And since the Senate and its industry-bought Senators won't allow insurance premium caps or an end to the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption (much less a public option to compete against them), there is nothing keeping those companies from jacking up rates to screw people. In fact, that's been their modus operandi for years.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama gives Citi another sweatheart deal

If only the White House fought this hard for health care reform instead of these secret, back room deals to benefit the few. Oh that's right, Obama only listens to lobbyists with deep pockets. This story brings back the issues in the recent Rolling Stone article that highlights the extensive ties to Robert Rubin and Citi inside the Obama economic team. The conflicts of interest have been there all along and even before Obama was sworn in. Remember that Citi was at the top of the heap before the bubble. They all were paying themselves very well - including and especially Robert Rubin - for creating the bubble. None of them ever paid back those bonuses despite being paid for selling worthless paper and gouging credit card customers. Now, they're being rewarded yet again. And we're supposed to support this White House?

The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis.

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to long-standing tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and a few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors.

While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits.

Read the rest of this post...

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

The Senate inches closer towards passing the Joe Lieberman-sanctioned health care bill. Joe is so important, but unlike the nation's top bankers who blew off the President on Monday, he made it to the White House yesterday for the meeting of Senator's with Obama. That was so gracious of Lieberman to show up at the White House to let Obama know that he was going to let the weak version of Obama's top legislative priority move forward.

There was some good news yesterday when the D.C. City Council passed the marriage equality bill. Mayor Fenty should sign the legislation by the end of the week. The anti-gay forces are, of course, working every angle to thwart the new law. The Catholic Bishops, fresh from their victory on the Stupak amendment, will no doubt bring the fight to Congress. I don't expect we'll hear any message of support for the new marriage law from the President on this one. But, theoretically, this issue could end up on his desk.

The Boston Tea Party was held on this date in 1773. The modern-day teabaggers have bastardized that event with their hate-filled, racist escapades in 2009.

Let's get threading.. Read the rest of this post...

Copenhagen - new move to make bankers pay for climate change bill

Why not? They obviously have much too much money, so maybe we should all thank them for being so flash about spreading it around during such hard times. Just as they lacked common sense during the build up to the bubble, they're too arrogant to figure out that by standing so far above the rest, they're going to be targets when the world starts looking for cash. While some EU leaders are on board, we can probably already guess how Obama and the US will feel about it. Somewhere, someone is making excuses for the bankers and while the talk will continue to be tough, we all know who is going to cave in and protect Wall Street. Same as it ever was.

The proposal, from Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia's long-standing ruler who is now one of Africa's elder statesmen, concerned one of the crucial sticking points in the negotiations for a new treaty to fight global warming, which have to end on Friday – the financial deal which must be a key part of any new climate agreement.

Rich countries have agreed in principle that they will create a massive new international Climate Fund to help poor countries cut their carbon emissions and adapt to the damage likely to be caused by climate change but negotiations are stuck on who should contribute and how much.

Mr Zenawi, who arrived in Copenhagen last night to represent the 53 member states of the African Union at the talks, suggested that much of the money could be raised by new taxes on aviation and shipping and an innovative global tax on all financial transactions – known as a "Tobin tax". Research has suggested that such a tax could raise up to $100bn a year.

Read the rest of this post...

British police arrest student artist for filming - cite terrorism

There's a video inside (maybe The Guardian can eventually figure out embedding technology that everyone else uses) that should be a great concern for many. The recent happenings dating back at least to the time Tony Blair had police arrest an elderly Labour Party member arrested for calling him out at a political event (citing anti-terror laws, of course) is a dangerous trend.

There have been numerous run-ins with the British police lately and despite apologies and repeated clarifications of the actual law, it continues to be a problem. Obviously nobody really cares about hassling photographers without reason. The bad guys also would probably never try more to blend in and try new tactics for taking photos either. Have fun on your next British holiday and be sure to leave the camera at home. Who really takes photos while on vacation anyway?

Simona Bonomo, 32, an art student at London Metropolitan University at London Metropolitan University, filmed the moment on 19 November when she was approached by two police community support officers (PCSOs) in Paddington, west London.

When Bonomo was challenged by one PCSO, she said she was filming "just for fun". He replied: "You like looking at those buildings do you? You're basically filming for fun? I don't believe you."

Bonomo then declined his request to see what she had filmed. "I can have a look if I want to, if I think it may be linked to terrorism. This is an iconic site," he replied.

Read the rest of this post...