Re: The Escapists 2 Download Licence Key
Mazie Wingeier
Download of this product is subject to the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and our Software Usage Terms plus any specific additional conditions applying to this product. If you do not wish to accept these terms, do not download this product. See Terms of Service for more important information.
One-time licence fee to download to multiple PS4 systems. Sign in to PlayStation Network is not required to use this on your primary PS4, but is required for use on other PS4 systems.
See Health Warnings for important health information before using this product.
Library programs Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. exclusively licensed to Sony Computer Entertainment Europe. Software Usage Terms apply, See eu.playstation.com/legal for full usage rights.
PRINTED FROM OXFORD REFERENCE (www.oxfordreference.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Frank Perry is an institutionalized convict twelve years into a life sentence without parole. When his estranged daughter falls ill, he is determined he make peace with her before it's too late. He develops an ingenious escape plan, and recruits a dysfunctional band of escapists - misfits with a mutual dislike for one other but united by their desire to escape their hell hole of an existence.
Midlands indie escapists Peace hogged the headlines back in 2013 when their debut album In Love was heralded by the British press as a breakthrough masterpiece. Here, they chat about the making of their ace follow-up record Happy People...
Nutrition Coach, Personal Trainer & Admin Wanda is a talent in coaching and organisation. She started her fitness journey within classical gyms before she then decided to move from being a manager of a large fitness facility to work on coaching on a personal level at Escapist CrossFit. Wanda has several certifications such as Level 2 CrossFit, Precision Nutrition Certified Coach, Level A&B Personal Training licence and continues to work on her development.
While the episode is not based on a true story, it was likely inspired by real-life cases where psychedelic underground sessions turned out deadly. A closer look at the German-speaking psychedelic underground scene brings to light one specific name: Samuel Widmer. Widmer was a Swiss psychiatrist who, in 1986, got a special permit from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) to use psychedelics for research purposes. Due to malpractice, the FOPH revoked the special permit seven years later. Yet Widmer continued to use psychedelics in his therapeutic work and founded a cult-like community called Cherry Blossom Community, leading to a network of underground practitioners. At this, reports of community escapists and former patients indicate that psychedelics got used to manipulate patients and make them dependent.
The Escapists est une nouvelle licence développée par Mouldy Toof Studios et éditée par la Team 17 (Worms) où vous incarnez un prisonnier qui essaye de s'échapper d'une prison dans une ambiance graphique et musicale 8 bits. Le jeu est déjà disponible en Early Access sur Steam et sort le 13 Février prochain sur Xbox One.
News Group Newspapers Limited in England No. 679215 Registered office: 1 London Bridge Street, London, SE1 9GF. "The Sun", "Sun", "Sun Online" are registered trademarks or trade names of News Group Newspapers Limited. This service is provided on News Group Newspapers' Limited's Standard Terms and Conditions in accordance with our Privacy & Cookie Policy. To inquire about a licence to reproduce material, visit our Syndication site. View our online Press Pack. For other inquiries, Contact Us. To see all content on The Sun, please use the Site Map. The Sun website is regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO)
I think you may be right about staying away fro new startups. I have wasted money on 4 of them. I guess I should count myself lucky that this one even turns on. I was stupid enough to pay for, "The Dead Linger". Another zombie Alpha game. That one crashes every time I try and start it but developers don't care once they have your money. I think I will develop a game. I don't need to actually make a game, just charge people for one. It is a licence to steal money from people.
2005 Q ENTERTAINMENT and Bandai. Program 2005 Q ENTERTAINMENT and Bandai. Published and distributed by Ubisoft Entertainment under license from Bandai Games Inc. LUMINES is a trademark of Bandai. All Rights Reserved. GripShift 2005 Prodigy Design Limited. GripShift is published under license from Prodigy Design Limited and Red Mile Entertainment, Inc. Red Mile Entertainment and the Red Mile Entertainment logo are trademarks of Red Mile Entertainment, Inc. GripShift and Sidhe are trademarks of Prodigy Design Limited.GripShift and FRANTIX are published by Ubisoft Entertainment under licence from Sony Online Entertainment Inc. SOE and the SOE logo are registered trademarks and Station Publishing is a trademark of Sony Online Entertainment Inc.
"I think that's the discussion that we need to have," he said. "The BBC should not interpret the fact that we haven't said anything about the way licence fee funds are used as an indication that we are happy about it. We will be having very tough discussions."
Chairman of the BBC Trust Sir Michael Lyons has outlined plans to slash pay, calling for greater transparency and saying every pound the BBC takes from licence fee-payers must be shown to have been spent well.
In today's Diary: Karen Bradley chased over lack of TV licence... but steps in as Theresa May understudy Amal Clooney's wedding dress takes pride of place in exhibition Conde Nast car park hosts glittering anniversary
OVER to that notorious Conservative WhatsApp group. One of the others to pipe up on it is the Culture Secretary Karen Bradley, who has been complaining about the TV licensing authority. Bradley constituency office in Staffordshire Moorlands is being bothered by the licence collection agency, which keeps sending it letters and is now investigating the premises over a lack of a TV licence.
Chairperson: Mr N Kekana (ANC)
Documents Handed Out:
National Association of Broadcasters submission (Appendix 1)
SACP submission (Appendix 2)
SANEF submission (Appendix 3)
National Community Radio Forum submission (Appendix 4)
Comments by Freedom of Commercial speech Trust on The Media Development And diversity Agency Bill (Appendix 5)
Print Media submission( Appendix 6)
SUMMARY
There were five submissions on the second day of the public hearings into the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill (MDDA). All the submissions provided suggestions about how the Bill could be amended to ensure that transparency, diversity, freedom of expression and independence would be respected. Other issues discussed in length revolved around funding opportunities for the community media. The need to clarify the funding criteria for community projects was a major talking point. There was consensus that the commercial media and government had to give more assistance to community media projects.
Many of the questions asked by members of the Portfolio Committee revolved around how the Bill would deal with the funding issues. There was also a general consensus that the establishment of an ombuds would ensure the entire process was more transparent and independent.
MINUTES
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) submission
The submission began with an outline of NAB members. In short this included, three TV stations, nineteen commercial radio stations and 30 community stations. The NAB gave a brief run-through of their position regarding the MDDA. They also welcomed the Committee's decision to allow for public comment.
Firstly, the NAB recommended that changes be made to the proposed ministerial powers as outlined in the Bill. This could be done with a simple rewording of the relevant legislation. Essentially, the NAB called for establishment of an ombuds to limit the ministerial powers. They suggested an ombuds based along the lines of the banking ombuds in South Africa.
Secondly, the NAB suggested a thorough inquiry into the licensing problems being experienced by community radio stations. The current situation was untenable as community stations had to reapply for licences every year rather than being granted with a four-year licence as proposed by previous legislation. This was a major problem for the stations as it meant they were unable to implement long-term plans for staff training and advertising revenue.
In conclusion the NAB made it clear that it supported and agreed with the objectives of the Bill. Further, it commented that impartiality and diversity were the most important aspects of the Bill.
Discussion
Ms Smuts (DP) asked what the nature of the agreement between the NAB and Government Communication Information Systems (GCIS) was with regard to funding? Secondly, how did the NAB propose to put in place structures that would encourage diversity? How could disparities be addressed?
The NAB replied that it was not simply a question of handing over money. The emphasis had to be on capacity development and sustainability. Disparities must be confronted, which is why the NAB supported Clauses 14 and 17 of the Bill. These sections dealt with the finances of the agency and special groups that would receive priority.
The NAB also outlined the importance of transparency in the whole process. For example, if the Board proposed regulations in line with the objectives of the Bill, this needed to be a public process. Further, the Minister has a responsibility for overall oversight. The NAB did have some reservations about how the Board would relate to the Minister.
Mr Abram (UDM) mentioned that he was pleased that there was widespread support for the Bill. His major issue of contention was linked to political involvement with regard to the ombudsperson. If there was to be an ombuds, there needed to be a careful outline of its exact role and function. Secondly, in terms of representation on the Board, would the NAB think that some political involvement would wipe out the independence of the Board?
The NAB responded by suggesting the election of the ombuds be based on the way the Board is elected. In terms of political involvement, it was mentioned that the less involvement, the better in order to protect independence.
Ms Smuts (DP) asked a number of questions. Firstly, she stated that the MDDA was not supposed to be a regulatory body. This is what made it different to ICASA, which was established by the Constitution. The MDDA, rather than being a regulatory body would be a body that dished out money. This money, wherever it comes from, should not be left in the hands of the Minister or the Board. Ms Smuts questioned whether the Minister should have any oversight role as the body was either independent or not. She continued that the body must not just be a mechanism simply to distribute money amongst various sectors. The distribution of money should be based on sustainability.
The NAB replied that it was essential there was no confusion between the role of ICASA and MDDA. It was the Committee's responsibility to ensure that the Bill actually served its objectives. Further, the Committee needed to decide on whether there was too much overlap with ICASA.
In terms of ministerial powers, the NAB said that there was clearly a need for streamlined legislation. They supported ministerial involvement as long as the legislation carefully outlined the powers of the Minister and the Minister's role in respect of the Board. The Minister clearly could not have no role at all.
The Chairperson concluded this submission by making a number of points. He asked members to think of what sort of structure was being created. He stated that the objective of government was to promote diversity in terms of media ownership. Was this structure going to assist in this regard? He also mentioned the need to empower communities to recognize their constitutional rights to have freedom of expression. The language and culture of the entire population needed to have some representation.
NCRF Coalition submission
This submission was made on behalf of 92 community radio stations by Brenda Leonard and Ria Greyling. Policy issues are of vital importance to these stations as many are struggling to sustain themselves. The presenters noted that they had struggled to get their submission together as they could not get the relevant documentation from the GCIS. Furthermore, the community radio stations did not get access to the Bill during the drafting process. This was perhaps an indication that the government was not serious about community radio. The presenters invited all committee members to visit any station to gauge their positive impact on the community.
It was pointed out that the MDDA had support from the community media since 1995. However, there were various issues which needed to be raised. Generally, there needed to be a promotion of democracy and development issues. The following points were raised:
- The funding of community media needed to be regulated and legislated, as a result of historical circumstances.
- Sustainability, while important, is not possible in all cases.
- Agreement with approach that MDDA should facilitate media diversity.
- The stability of the sector is of the utmost importance.
- The minister should not be granted special powers.
- The funding criteria must be carefully looked at.
- The licence application process is flawed and must be sorted out.
- The lack of participation of civil society in media development must be addressed.
The following suggestions were made:
- The appeals process would be significantly aided with the establishment of an ombuds.
- Government must increase its contribution to the community media.
- The MDDA should have specific control over funding contributions.
- Community projects must not be given equipment without specific training.
- The role of specific projects in their communities must be examined before funding is cut.
In conclusion the submission stated that the MDDA should remain as independent as possible and that the Board must allocate funding in a transparent manner.
Discussion
Ms Smuts (DP) commented that she shared the shock that the community radio stations were not consulted during the drafting process. She asked that if financial sustainability was not so important, then surely audience sustainability is. What are the audience figures of the stations? Has there been a growing stable audience market?
Secondly, Ms Smuts pointed out that the Portfolio Committee was not part of government. It is a legislative body that has a watchdog role and must assist in passing legislation. Therefore, she asked why the Board should report to the portfolio committee rather than the minister, who is actually a representative of government.
Ms Smuts suggested that it was unlikely that the commercial industry would be willing to pay another levy as they were suffering under already heavy tax burdens.
The NCRF Coalition representatives responded by outlining their support for the Bill. Since 1995 they had been excited and positive about such legislation. However, the Bill did not adequately address the issue of transparency. Secondly, the Board proposed by the Bill needed to be independent, and the board members empowered to achieve the objectives of the Agency.
In terms of sustainability it was pointed out that all stations aimed to be sustainable, but there were major problems with attracting advertisers.
In response to the comment on the unsuitability of a levy, the Coalition mentioned that all it wanted was a percentage of revenue rather than large sums of money out of an operating budget.
The presenters told the Committee that audience sustainability was one of the conditions outlined in the licensing process. They also commented that they were not convinced that the advertising research figures were an accurate reflection of the support for community radio.
South African Communist Party submission
The submission began by stating that the SACP saw the MDDA as an opportunity to reflect on the state of media transformation in the country. Therefore, the government must ensure that it utilised the MDDA to transform the media. Furthermore, the SACP suggested that all amendments be made to ensure the media is independent from private commercial interests.
The SACP outlined the following problems and suggestions with regard to the MDDA:
- The licence application process is flawed
- The Board proposed is not necessarily accountable to the public
- The MDDA needs to ensure the protection of constitutional rights such as freedom of expression
- The MDDA must not purely be a funding body but must also have powers to make recommendations
- The SACP did not understand why the public broadcaster was not represented on the Board.
- Generally, the SACP suggested wide-ranging amendments to the representation on the Board
- The statutory levy must be based on the revenue of the commercial media.
- There should be limits to the amount of foreign ownership in SA media. It should be restricted to less than 50 percent
In conclusion the SACP called for a Summit on the issue of transformation in the media where a Charter could be drawn up carefully outlining the objectives for progress. Further, the SACP emphasised that labour relations needed to be bought onto the agenda.
Discussion
Ms Smuts commented that any subsidised system would be dominated by the political masters of the day. She asked for clarification on the approach of the SACP towards transformation. Did they have a clear policy? What would community stations look like in the future?
The SACP replied that it aspired to the creation of a non-sexist, non-racist South Africa. Ultimately it did support the creation of a socialist society but not all aspects of the media had to be socialist in make-up. Rather, the SACP sought to encourage diversity within media ownership. Further, extensive foreign ownership should be discouraged. It was the objective of the SACP to ensure that the views expressed by the media are the voice of the oppressed rather than commercial propaganda of the advantaged few. In terms of funding, the SACP supported voluntary funding that has no conditions attached. Power must not be left in the hands of the corporate world.
Print Media submission
The submission began by outlining its support for the Bill and welcoming the transparency of the whole process. Main points made by the submission included:
- The need for a memorandum of understanding with regard to funding from the commercial media.
- Funding issues must be open to public scrutiny.
- The Board must operate within some ambit of independence.
- Voluntary contributions from the commercial print media should go towards community print media projects.
South African National Editors Forum submission
The presenter explained the make-up of the Forum as representing a wide variety of senior editors from across the country. The focus of the submission was two-fold:
- to examine issues of transformation within the Bill and
- to ensure that freedom of expression was protected by the Bill.
Another major focus for SANEF was to ensure that the MDDA created an enabling environment for training and diversity. In this regard, SANEF pointed out that the Agency must make use of existing training resources.
A number of points surrounding funding criteria were made. Funding opportunities must be transparent and understandable to the entire population. SANEF suggested the creation of a clearly defined model. Furthermore, funding grants must be based on social relevance rather than escapist entertainment.
SANEF also made the point that too much power had been ascribed to the Minister. The Minister should not be empowered to decide on funding criteria as this affected independence. Ministerial influence was already felt through budgetary allocations. The suggestion from SANEF was that the Board should report annually to Parliament rather than being accountable to the Minister.
In conclusion, SANEF stated that the MDDA could play an important role in transforming the media landscape. Furthermore, the more voices heard in public discourse, the more likely that freedom of expression will become a reality for the marginalized.
The Chairperson then concluded the meeting by saying that all the submissions would be taken very seriously and the hearings had been a success.
Appendix 1
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS SUBMISSION
MDDA FINAL SUBMISSION 2002
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The National Association of Broadcasters ("the NAB") represents most South African broadcasters. The NAB aims to further the interests of the broadcasting industry in South Africa by contributing to the sector's development and diversity.
1.2 NAB members include:
1.2.1 the three television and nineteen radio stations of the public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation;
1.2.2 all commercial broadcasters in both radio and television;
1.2.3 both the common carrier and the selective and preferential carrier licensed signal distributors; and
1.2.4 over thirty community broadcasters.
1.2 The NAB supports government's intention to promote media development and diversity by providing support to community and small commercial media projects. We are hopeful that this intervention will facilitate the support of existing community radio stations and will enable the promotion and establishment of further stations.
1.3 In 2000, a draft Position Paper on the Media Development and Diversity Agency ("MDDA") was published by the South African government, to which the NAB responded by means of written and oral submissions.
1.4 At that time, the NAB voiced its concerns regarding some issues contained in the Draft Position Paper on Media Development and Diversity ("the Draft Position Paper"). The concerns raised by the NAB related to the following:
1.4.1 the mandate of the MDDA as reflected in Chapter 4 of the Draft Position Paper;
1.4.2 the MDDA's budget as reflected in Chapter 10.3 of the Draft Position Paper;
1.4.3 the MDDA's funding model as stated in Chapter 10.2 of the Draft Position Paper; and
1.4.4 the MDDA and its possible impact on the independence of other statutory bodies.
1.5 The Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill ("the Bill") has subsequently been published in Government Gazette No 23090 dated 4 February 2002.
1.6 The NAB is pleased to note a number of our concerns have been addressed in the Bill. We do, however, have some additional comments to make. These issues are listed below and will be discussed with reference to specific sections of the Bill.
1.6.1 The powers granted to the Minister by the Bill are wide and reduce the MDDA's independence from government. The Bill currently empowers the Minister to intervene in a decision of the MDDA in accordance with the appeal procedure prescribed in the Bill and to make regulations which impact on the MDDA's decision-making function. The NAB is of the view that the Board of the MDDA, not the Minister, should be tasked with making regulations.
1.6.2 The mandate of the MDDA could, in some instances be more clearly defined. The NAB is of the view that the MDDA's priority should be rolling out support to deserving entities and projects.
1.6.3 Certain terminology used in the Bill requires clarification.
2. MINISTERIAL POWERS
2.1 The NAB supports the independence of the MDDA as laid out in section 2 (4) of the Bill. However, the NAB is concerned that certain sections of the Bill appear to erode this independence. The NAB therefore proposes the following:
2.2 Section 13(3)(b)
This section should be deleted. The notification of an annual meeting of the Board with stakeholders in the media industry should be publicly advertised, as provided for in section 13(3)(c). Invitations should be extended to all stakeholders in the media industry.
2.3 Section 17(k)
Section 17 lists groups for whose benefit projects are to be regarded as priority projects for the purposes of receiving support from the MDDA. The additional groups envisaged by this section should be identified by the Board after consultation with stakeholders in the media industry.
2.4 Section 18(3)
2.4.1 This section empowers the Minister to prescribe criteria which will impact on the manner in which the MDDA is to fulfil its mandate, namely criteria for selecting projects, the manner in which application for support for projects must be made and the information to accompany applications.
2.4.2 The NAB is of the opinion that this Ministerial power will limit the impartiality and independent decision-making ability of the MDDA.
2.4.3 The NAB proposes that the selection criteria, together with the procedure to be followed and information to be submitted by applicants, as envisaged in sections 18(3)(a) to 18(3)(c), be determined by the Board, after consultation with stakeholders in the media industry. The findings of the Board should then be published as regulations to the Act.
2.5 Section 18(4) and 19 (3)
2.5.1 Similarly, these sections empower the Minister to prescribe the percentages of money to be utilised in support of community media projects, small commercial media projects and research projects and to intervene in a decision of the MDDA in accordance with the appeal procedure prescribed in the Bill.
2.5.2 The NAB is of the opinion that these Ministerial powers will limit the impartiality and independent decision-making ability of the MDDA.
2.5.3 The NAB proposes that the percentages, as envisaged in sections 18(4)(a) to 18(4)(c), be determined by the Board, after consultation with stakeholders in the media industry. The findings of the Board should then be published as regulations to the Act.
2.5.4The NAB further proposes that the Minister should not be permitted to intervene in a decision made by the Board, but that provision should be made in this section for an appeal to be made by an aggrieved person to an ombudsman, who shall act independent of the Minister and of the Board, within a period of 30 days after the date of a decision made in terms of section 19(2).
2.6 Section 21
2.6.1 Section 21(1) empowers the Minister to "make regulations regarding any matter that is required or permitted to be prescribed in terms of [the] Act".
2.6.2 Again, the NAB is of the opinion that this Ministerial power will limit the impartiality and independent decision-making ability of the MDDA.
2.6.3 The NAB proposes that the Board of the MDDA, not the Minister, should be tasked with making the necessary regulations.
2.6.4 The text of a proposed regulation should be published in accordance with the manner prescribed in section 21(2), together with a notice declaring the Board's intention to make a regulation, and not the Minister's intention.
2.6.5 The NAB believes that regulations made in terms of the Bill should be limited to issues that will facilitate the mandate of the Board to roll out support to deserving entities. The NAB would oppose the MDDA having wide regulatory powers to examine and effect change in existing media policy and laws. (See also our comments on Section 13.4).
3. MANDATE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE MDDA
3.1 Section 13(1)
The NAB submits that the general functions of the Board be reformulated in order to allow it to more clearly focus on the goal for which it was established, namely to fund community and small commercial media projects. The NAB believes that open-ended provisions in section 13 (1) such as the provisions to "promote media needs", "engage in research" and conduct "marketing" may distract the board from this goal and should therefore be removed. This reformulation will also prevent any possible overlap with the mandate of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa ("ICASA").
The NAB therefore submits that section 13(1) should read as follows:
"13(1) The Board must, in the promotion of media development and diversity -
a) engage in research to select projects in accordance with the criteria prescribed in terms of section 18(3) to receive support;
b) select projects in accordance with the criteria prescribed in terms of section 18(3) to receive support;
c) raise public awareness with regard to media development and diversity issues;
d) negotiate with public utilities, organisations and financial institutions to acquire indirect support for projects, including support in the form of -
i) discounts or subsidies i