Category Archives: Law

Consider or Contemplate?

It is a stage we all face. Should we consider that the media is corrupt, or contemplate it is? It is not out of the blue, the media did this to themselves. First hide behind ‘the people have a right to know’, then hide behind the ‘miscommunication of crimes’ (like the phone hacking scandal) and then the crocodile tears that they can manage themselves (the Leveson report) and even before the ink dries going back to their old habits (the MH370 suicide jab). The amount of examples is legion (and as I know the devil, he was never THAT outspoken). 

So what got me here?
Well there are a few items, but the Guardian pushed me to that side again almost two days ago. The Guardian is not more of anything, it was merely that article that brought it to the surface and when you search, you will see what I mean (and you can seek out the other culprits), they too are legion. 

As I said, it started yesterday with the article (at with the ‘capturing’ headline ‘‘People wanted to believe the fairytale’: the downfall of Elizabeth Holmes’. Well actually they didn’t. This is the story the media pushed. They wanted their media darling, they wanted the nicely scrubbed youngling. She didn’t finish (drop out) Stanford University at the age of 19. She had the Steve Jobs look and, Theranos was (at some point) valued at more than $9,000,000,000 and Holmes became the world’s youngest billionaire and the media wanted that, they wanted another Disney Story and nothing Frozen about her, was there? 

So when we get “It began with a 2015 article by Carreyrou that revealed Theranos’s revolutionary technology wasn’t exactly what it seemed” we all feel sorry, we are all left in the dark, yet that too is was the cards the media wanted you to see, hiding behind ‘miscommunications’ and by leaving things unsaid. That setting is not unique. In Market research there is an expression, a running joke if you like. If you want a linear result merely plot two events and fit the story as such, these two point will for the most ALWAYS show linear result, the rest make it a liability. It is almost like the lawyer who will not ask a question that he does not know the answer to. It gets these persons where they want to go. In the case of Elizabeth Holmes (and Theranos) it is the same with the media. 

My evidence?
In January 2022 NPR (one of the few sources) gave us “He blew the whistle on Theranos when he was just 22 years old. Now 31, he was ready for closure. “This story has been unfolding for pretty much my entire adult life,” said Shultz in a long-ranging interview with NPR from an in-law suite at his parents’ home in Silicon Valley’s Los Gatos.” I mentioned it in the smallest way with “Where was the Guardian interviewing the Whistleblower Tyler Shultz? Thanks to him this was stopped,” and I did so on February 6th with ‘That courtesan called media’ (at the issue is that the media to the largest degree shunned him and Erik Cheung and I personally believe that the reasoning is self-centred and therefor corrupt. And corrupt is exactly the setting, look it up in the dictionary It will give you “having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain”. If they were not then between January 2022 and now we would have seen at least one article on Tyler Shultz. So count the articles they have Elisabeth Holmes, and count the articles that give us Tyler Shultz and it does not end there. NPR also gave us “Being a Theranos whistleblower would soon morph into a much bigger nightmare. Soon, he was dealing with private investigators Holmes hired to follow him. Lawyers tried to intimidate him. Holmes tried to destroy his life.” It showed Holmes to be a backstabbing little bitch, but that didn’t fit the Disney view that the media wanted, did it? And with “Shultz was on the government’s witness list. He was never called to testify. He isn’t sure why.” We get the larger question. The whistleblower was not asked to testify? It puzzles me, but there might be a legal reason, I honestly do not know the answer. What I do know is that the media with a few exceptions steered clear of him and they are all about the people have a right to know? You get a right to see the story the media spins, all with the approval of share holders, stake holders and advertisers. So is there a contemplation or consideration that the bulk of the media is corrupt? I believe there is and with Elizabeth Holmes we see another side of that media, one that needs to stop even if it means that the media loses their 0% VAT rights. 

And the news goes on (and on and on). Vanity Fair gave us “business editor Ellen Pollock was put on the spot to defend a soft-focus profile of the disgraced Theranos founder, telling staff she didn’t “give a fuck” about the criticism.” The news and ‘soft focus’? WTF? So do we see the New York Times going soft on crimes and criminals? Perhaps there is more and when you consider that Holmes set the stage for “Many of the marquee names that made up the Theranos board — former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Sen. Sam Nun and George Shultz” Tylers Grandfather and former United States Secretary of State no less. Holmes had them all under her spell which would apply to a false prophet, not a media darling and that is perhaps the biggest failing of all. If NPR (at hadn’t given us the goods, we would all be in the dark. Perhaps there are more but I was unable to find them. Seek Google for “Elizabeth Holmes Tyler Shultz”, or just seek “Tyler Shultz” these two seeks should give you at least a little more on the media and their spin. 

So whatever you do, consider at least that the media once again were trying to sell you a bag of goods, just like those researchers having two observations and making a linear claim. What did they all leave on the floor?

Enjoy the day.


Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Science

My boiling point

Yup, I have one and the Guardian pushed my button. We all have buttons that can be pushed. If you sing “It’s a cruel Summer, leaving me, leaving me here on my own” really off key to Summer Mcintosh there is a chance she’ll blow a gasket too (it is based on classical music by Ace of Base, 1992). Some dislike the limelight, others (like me) have other buttons. And there is the start for today. The article by Rupert Neate a wealth correspondent (whatever that is) is by their own submission a reporter on covering the super rich and inequality, again whatever the hell that is. But let’s look at that article (at where he starts by hiding behind ‘could’ making him some clueless labor tool. The text “A modest wealth tax on the richest 350 families in the UK could raise more than £20bn a year – enough to fund the construction of 145,000 new affordable homes a year – according to research by fairer taxation campaigners” and there is the emotional useless stage. ‘Constructing 145,000 new affordable homes a year’ We will not get the equations there. We do not get locality because that pricing leaves London far outside of the scope. No his goal is limelight, to hide behind ‘could’ and emotions. Then we get “A 2% tax on assets above £10m held by all members of the Sunday Times rich list could raise as much as £22bn, according to analysis by Tax Justice UK, the Economic Change Unit and the New Economics Foundation (NEF).” And still we get no equations or justification on these numbers. We get another emotional ‘tax the rich’ by an emotional tool. And he merely ‘emotionally validates’ some Sunday Times list without justification. 

You see, lets take a look at the Guardian from June 2017 where we were given (at ) ’Battersea Power Station developer slashes number of affordable homes’, there we see how Malaysian investors slashed 40% of the agreed affordable homes. How did that end? Nothing (and nowhere), you useless tool! Where is the prosecution of exploiting foreign investors? Where are your values there?  In my personal opinion Rupert Neate needs to buy a lollie, sit in a corner, suck on that and shut the fuck up (pardon my language). 

It is always labour minded idiots that are heralding ‘inequality’ and that is a larger problem. I am not against PROPER taxation, but these people according to taxation law paid their fair share and then some. You see in 2022 according to one source “629,000 people paid the additional rate of income tax is 45%, and is paid on earnings above £125,140 a year”, so these people already are in the 45% bracket (don’t worry I have a solution). They have paid their fair share, yet there is another matter. I am not blind to certain levels of inequality. You see fair taxation is also needed on corporations, Apple didn’t become a trillion dollar industry because of their devices. Their tax write offs are unheard of and that had to change decades ago. I wish them all their profits, yet there should be taxation. Retail Gazette gives us ‘UK Apple stores paid less than £800,000 tax despite £971.5m of sales’ did that useless wealth correspondent look at that part? And they are merely one of dozens of companies that are legally stretching the lines of taxation laws. Then we are given “Those on the rich list include the prime minister Rishi Sunak and wife Akshata Murty at number 275 out of 350, with £529m, and the 32-year-old Duke of Westminster, with £9.9bn, at number 11.” And that might be true, so did they pay their taxation? It seems Apple didn’t. And that list grows, whilst the useless people are focussed on people who paid their dues according to tax laws. You see, there is another income stream. We get so much emotional garbage from magazines and newspapers that they should LOSE their 0% VAT setting, we can set that to 6% or 10%, there is your income right there. If you cannot properly report the news, you should be taxed. You forgot about the mirror image you see when you get up in the morning. So I give you another income source. If you cannot properly do your job, you get to be taxed as well.

Issue solved!

You see, if we are to believe the HMRC, six hundred and twenty nine thousand people pay their fair share and then some. So this rich list is utter BS, I say we tax the media, lets see how long they can play games whilst letting some useless wealth correspondent continue their ‘labor’ needs. Yes, this is personal, but we see this come again and again whilst no one is doing anything about tax laws or exploiting investors. Why not? It seems that the Guardian has a few fences to mend and I suggest that they hop to it, I reckon that they could spring that 10% VAT bill, but there is a chance that they will cry like little bitches, just like they did when the Leveson report was released. 

So, they pressed my button and this was my response. So, have a nice day whilst I kill a few people in Skyrim with a bow (we all unwind in our own way), they will never know what hit them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Prototyping rhymes with dotty

This is the setting we faced when we see ‘ChatGPT: US lawyer admits using AI for case research’ (at You see as I have stated before, AI does not yet exist. Whatever is now is data driven, unverified data driven no less, so even in machine learning and even deeper machine learning data is key. So when I read “A judge said the court was faced with an “unprecedented circumstance” after a filing was found to reference example legal cases that did not exist.” I see a much larger failing. You might see it too when you read “The original case involved a man suing an airline over an alleged personal injury. His legal team submitted a brief that cited several previous court cases in an attempt to prove, using precedent, why the case should move forward. But the airline’s lawyers later wrote to the judge to say they could not find several of the cases that were referenced in the brief.” You see, a case reference is ‘12-10576 – Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al’. This is not new, it has been a case for decades, so when we take note of “the airline’s lawyers later wrote to the judge to say they could not find several of the cases” we can tell that the legal team of the man is screwed. You see they were unprepared as such the airline wins. A simple setting, not an unprecedented circumstance. The legal team did not do its job and the man could sue his own legal team now. As well as “Mr Schwartz added that he “greatly regrets” relying on the chatbot, which he said he had never used for legal research before and was “unaware that its content could be false”.” The joke is close to complete. You see a law student learns in his (or her) first semester what sources to use. I learned that Austlii and Jade were the good sources, as well as a few others. The US probably has other sources to check. As such relying on ChatGPT is massively stupid. It does not has any record of courts, or better stated ChatGPT would need to have the data on EVERY court case in the US and the people who do have it are not handing it out. It is their IP, their value. And until ChatGPT gets all that data it cannot function. The fact that it relied on non-existing court cases implies that the data is flawed, unverified and not fit for anything. Like any software solution 2-5 years before it hits the Alpha status. And that legal team is not done with the BS paragraph. We see that with “He has vowed to never use AI to “supplement” his legal research in future “without absolute verification of its authenticity”.” Why is it BS? He used supplement in the first, which implies he had more sources and the second is clear, AI does not (yet) exist. It is a sales hype for lazy sales people who cannot sell Machine Learning and Deeper Machine Learning. 

And the screw ups kept on coming. With “Screenshots attached to the filing appear to show a conversation between Mr Schwarz and ChatGPT. “Is varghese a real case,” reads one message, referencing Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, one of the cases that no other lawyer could find. ChatGPT responds that yes, it is – prompting “S” to ask: “What is your source”.

After “double checking”, ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.” The natural question is the verification part to check Westlaw and LexisNexis which are real and good sources. So either would spew out the links with searches like ‘Varghese’ or ‘Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd’, with saved links and printed results. Any first year law student could get you that. It seems that this was not done. This is not on ChatGPT, this is on lazy researchers not doing their job and that is clearly in the limelight here. 

So when we get to “Both lawyers, who work for the firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, have been ordered to explain why they should not be disciplined at an 8 June hearing.” I merely wonder whether they still have a job after that and I reckon that it is plainly clear no one will ever hire them again. 

So how does prototyping rhyme with dotty? It does not, but if you rely on ChatGPT you should have seen that coming a mile away. 

Enjoy your first working day after the weekend.

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

The optician’s folly

It is a setting that exists. I don’t think that I have ever faced it myself. I have met short sighted managers, people whose pupils have reshaped into dollar signs, so if it didn’t meet their revenue goals it would be invisible to the eye. I have met all kinds of stupid people, not those who lacked intelligence, but those who pig headed ran into a situation regardless of the consequence. I have seen all those and I was in the military. I saw the middle east through non touristy eyes, even though my own point of view was warped to say the least. We all have been there or saw something to that degree. Yet the larger stage that the BBC gives us (at is totally new and a new kind of weird. The article ‘Navy finds ‘perfect storm’ of problems in elite Seals course’ doesn’t really come close or do it justice. This is not on the BBC or the writer. They reported and reported correctly. Yet this setting on the US Navy Seals is beyond comprehension. It starts with “The US Navy’s report found that the programme put “candidates at significant risk” of injury and death. The investigation followed the death of a 24-year-old sailor during the course in February 2022” and goes arctic pretty much soon thereafter. You see, I was taken aback when I saw “Naval investigators found that medical care at the course was “poorly organised, poorly integrated and poorly led”, factors which it believes “likely had the most direct impact on the health and well being” of candidates.” Consider that you have a collection of sailors, they are good, really good. As such the Navy have a vested interest to keep them safe. Now some of them think that they have it to be the best of the best of the best of the best. There will be a decent amount who will not make it, we get that. To become one of the elite is questionable on a few levels, but I get that some are driven to become elite and I accept that. I would never be that good, but I get that some are. Now consider that these were already way above average sailors and that is fine. So in what universe is it OK to handle a “poorly organised, poorly integrated and poorly led medical unit?” If they are not the stuff of legend and they state that this is an attrition rate of between 70% and 85% per class. Why not keep those safe and more important keep those who make it even more safe? Even as we get the doctors lollie with “a Navy official said that 10 people identified in the report – including two high ranking officers – are facing possible prosecution for Mr Mullen’s death” the larger issue is not that it was happening, but that there was a cluster of 10 men. This implies a much larger failure and for what? There is absolutely nothing to be gained from this level of failure and I wonder how that sails on the court martial hearings of the top brass involved. 

Then we get to “The report also found that some students turned to performance-enhancing drugs to improve their chances of completing BUD/S, a long-standing issue that the Navy had been slow to address.” This is another notch on the top brass addressing list. A place like the Navy Seals with ‘a long-standing issue that the Navy had been slow to address’? The Navy Seals no less, someone didn’t want this to be dealt with. A sort of accepted level of cheating. Will the person do whatever needs to be done? That is more than a tall order and it stands that those who make it, some will be dopey’s and more importantly they will have mental health issues, because when you are willing to do whatever needs to be done, the civilian side in that person will not be working properly and that person becomes a hazard to all around him. That is a setting that is clear from the very start and the top brass did not see that? Where did they get their ranks? With a pack of butter at the 7-11? 

I have ousted and firm believes and I get that plenty will not adhere to that, or even accept that. I was in favour of targeted killing from the start. To see this I need to give you the talk. You see most judges are to my point of view cowards, they adhere to the golden calf. Why you ask? The law is there for us all and it keeps 80% within lines. 19.997% are criminals and repeat offenders and the law deals with that, I am all for that. Yet there is a 0.003% that are driven by chaos, to hurt and kills whatever needs hurting or killing. They will never stop and until they are dead everyone is at risk. So it is a rare thing but it needs to be done. Now consider that the Navy has a training camp that creates people that are part of that 0.003% group. This is not fighting fire with fire, this is creating a fire and walking away, let nature run its course. Now in the wild this might optionally happen. Yet what to do when such a fire is set in Tampa Florida? A place with over 35% forests in the city and that city has 387,000 people, what then? As such, for a unit like the Navy Seals better than expected medical needs would be essential, when you unite these two views you will see that keeping these seals at the top of their game would be essential. As such the failure of the top brass here is a much larger failure than anyone ever considered. I am not sure if the Navy and its secretary Carlos Del Toro have any clue how large the failings are in this place. If not for those who are then at the very least for the ones who did not make it, because no one in the navy likes failure. We get that some have their sights set too high and this happens, but that is why these training camps exist. Many will wash out and they will understand it was not for them, but they were still better than good sailors and that waste is perhaps the most grievous failing. They failed the man of the navy to an unacceptable level and for the “slow to address” side? Well that is a whole other enchilada that the Navy and its JAG division will need to take a hard and harsh look at.

Enjoy the near end of the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Traitor’s Gateway

There is a gate through which traitors pass, it weirdly looks like the one in the Tower of London. It does not offer boating service. The traitors walk through the slime and the muck with their bare feet. This gateway is not in London, it is the entrance of the ninth level of hell, a place reserved for traitors. A gate reserved for people like Jack Teixeira, and he is most welcome to that entrance. Lucifer Morningstar has confirmed his reservation. He stated to me that the demons in that level had been doing too little. Too many demons, not enough traitors. So Jack will be getting the undivided attention of dozens of demons for millennia to come and as a second here equals a year there, eternity becomes a whole new context. And it seems that there is place for more if we can believe the CNN article (at There we read ‘Defense personnel alarmed after memos reveal Air Force leadership warned about accused Pentagon leaker but let him continue working’, so what was that again about the devils playground? Especially when I saw “Air Force leadership repeatedly warned Airman 1st Class Jack Teixeira about inappropriately accessing classified intelligence have left former and current defense personnel baffled at how he retained his security clearance and was able to continue sharing classified information for months.” I would not say that they are baffled. This level of inaction is just staggering. Some people in this day and age were not willing to put in the paperwork, some were hindered by indecision (a failing many managers tend to have) and then there is “had received a direct order from his superiors to stop taking notes on intelligence, which they found he was ignoring just a month later”. So if I read this right. We see all the huff and puff against Huawei and now TikTok and you keep a clown like that around? Give me a break, China doesn’t need to create elaborate intelligence gathering loopholes (if there are any, no evidence was ever presented.), China can just softly push an intelligence gamer and he will spout whatever they need. ‘Do you want the US invasion plans for Russia?’ Just mention ‘You could never invade Russia’ during a game of Fortnite and some clown will produce the PDF file with (if we may believe the CNN text) personal annotations and notes from the traitor themselves. That US service is just amazing. An Airman with intelligence clearings can deliver faster than an F-35 with overburner heat, hopefully only in America. 

The text also gives us ““This is negligence on the part of the chain of command,” said Jason Kikta, a former Marine Corps Officer and former member of US Cyber Command. “They had a clear pattern of behaviour,” adding he “should have been cut off at the second incident.”” You see, a clear answer and a straight directive, as one would expect from Marines (Airforce please take notes here). A simple application of Common Cyber Sense, like the Marines haircut, just cut it all off! Yes, that is how I believe it should be and what baffles me is how inactive the Airforce has become. You see, Common Cyber Sense is nothing new, it has been around 15 years. The repetition of warnings is nothing new either. All hetero sexual man wanted to look up the dress uniform of a youthful well shaped female Airman. I know it is wrong, but we were all 17 once and don’t we love admiring those forbidden fruits. This happens, it is wrong but it happens. Yet to push defence papers onto the gaming internet is a whole new level of wrong (stupid too) and inactions here that catered to it is setting the question. How much of an overhaul does the classification system need? Not merely that it happened once, but that a repeat offender was able to do it for so long requires a classification overhaul up to the highest rank in that location (and optionally other location to). Although the information at the end “Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN on Thursday that the new information was “deeply troubling.”” I would say to Mark Warner that ‘Deeply Troubling’ was some time ago and when we see Senators up in arms on TikTok and Huawei issues, all ignoring Cisco matters and calling this ‘deeply troubling’ is making me howl with laughter. And with the added “A memo from September 2022 says Teixeira was “observed taking notes on classified intelligence information” in the unit’s sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF, and putting “the note into his pocket.” He was instructed “to no longer take notes in any form on classified intelligence information””. So not only was he doing this for a long time, there is no way to tell how long BEFORE September 2022 this was going on, because I feel fairly certain that he got away with it for some time before someone noticed.

So don’t feel sorely, traitors will brighten your Fortnite day when needed, enjoy your gaming weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

The house wins

Yes, that has been the case since before WW1. In gambling the house wins and I got an interesting surprised served up by the BBC. It was the article (at where we see ‘Cryptocurrency: Treat investing as gambling, MPs say’ OK, that was a little unexpected, but when you think of it not the weirdest step to make. We see this with “The risks posed by crypto were “typical of those that exist in traditional financial services and it’s financial services regulation – rather than gambling regulation – that has the track record in mitigating them”, a Treasury official told BBC News.” I can get behind that. Lets not forget that crypto has no gold backing like currency, so not only is it a gamble, but in many cases it is a long shot at best. There is however a consideration we need to have and it is seen with “Gambling helpline charity GamCare told the BBC that, in the past two years, it had heard from more than 300 people who said they were struggling with investing in cryptocurrency and other forms of online financial markets.” It is seen with ‘struggling with investing’. I personally wonder that if you are struggling with an investment, then why invest in it to begin with, but that might be me. 

The plot thickens when you see “He said he had lost about £150,000 investing in crypto, including money he had borrowed, and that checking his phone to see how the market had moved had become an obsession. “There was no break at all, I was just I was on my phone constantly watching it and just couldn’t sleep,” he recalled.” So one person borrows to invest? I would not do that to buy stock in reliable options like Tesla or IBM, as such I will never ever do it in something fleeting as digital dollars. That is an orgasm more fleeting than trying to get one from a hooker with aids. I do not now, not ever trust digital currency. I accept that there are moments that this is the one payment option, but it will only exists until I get to the nearest bank to convert it to something more reliable. As such there is a rather nasty breach here. I would never invest in it and I do get that some do. And to be honest if I had the money in 2010 I might have bought 5-10 Bitcoins and that would have set me right, but I do not trust any digital currency and I still see all these ads come past with the statement ‘How rich would you be now if you had bought even one bitcoin in 2010?’ Yet that ship sailed and when you consider the grifters and BS artists trying to get you on digital trades, the idea to treat it as gambling makes a lot of sense to me and with gambling comes a lot more oversight. 

In the end, I have no idea where this will go, but the idea that all these new ‘students of digital currency’, the idea that they are soon to be privy to gambling oversight does seem appealing to me. And I do get it, it might be me, I might be too old for this new currency. 

I will let you decide, have a great day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Pregnancy optional

Yup, that happens apparently. Or so we can believe. You see, the story I saw at the BBC hours ago seemingly pried loose a few issues. The article (at gives us ‘UK men offered £10K to pose as dads in visa scam, BBC investigation finds’ Here we re given “Scammers are using Facebook to tout for business and claim to have helped thousands of women in this way. Facebook says such content is banned by its rules.” Which got me two feathers rustled. Lets be clear this could be happening and it likely is. So where does the BBC get the word ‘thousands’? The article gives us “Thai, who didn’t advertise on Facebook, said he would concoct a convincing backstory in order to successfully dupe the authorities.” We are also given “Another agent, calling herself Thi Kim, claimed she had helped thousands of pregnant migrant women. She said she could provide a British man and it would cost “ten thousand for the dad”, with her fee being £300.” You see, this is an income track with a short lifespan, and she taking £300 whilst paying the man £10,000 rings untrue. £2,300 and £8,000 would sound more believable. The entire setting is one that comes across particularly nasty. So when we get to “However, last year 4,860 family visas were granted to “other dependents” – a category which includes those applying to stay in the UK as parents of British children. Deliberately giving false details on a birth certificate is a criminal offence.” It is at this point I wonder what the game of Patrick Clahane, Divya Talwar & Khue B Luu is about. Is it about what we shallowly read, or is one of their friends anti-immigration? You tell me, because this story could go either way. How were the thousands ‘found’ and the fact that scammers are using Facebook is nothing new, but in this case how many are on Facebook? Then we combine the ‘thousands’ again but now we look at where these women come from. Thousands and there is no top-line listing? The names are Thai and asian sounding, but how many are from South America or Russia? And the last quote was “The BBC could not estimate the scale of the fraud, as the Home Office was unable to provide data on the number of cases it had investigated.” Well, the numbers we do get gives us over 41% (thousands divided by 4860) and that is merely the top, there is too much inaccuracies. So are the BBC again biting at the steak of emotional baggage? I wonder what is actually true here and it is not the first time that the BBC is reporting in a questionable way. 

So what will be the next stage, vacations to dubious locations are offered free of charge so that you can impregnate (read: have sex) with a dozen women, all for free? If the article has any truth in it then it would be the part where we see “how desperate these women are”, mainly because for a lot of non-europeans the UK still represents a slice of golden future. That was never in question. The question becomes the BBC and what they consider making news. As I see it “has not responded to the BBC’s request for comment” is a mere approach to give validity to something that is not and I have a few questions on the article that lacks a whole range of validity. So how about Tim Davie? Will you improve the story quality and the numbers on this or are you destined to be the next Uber driver? They are taking resume’s at present.

Enjoy your non impregnating (or non impregnated) day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media


That happens, things are discarded, things get thrown away. Yet how do we react when it is a child? That was the thought that came over me when I saw the news on CBC (at giving us ‘Rosedale community members hold memorial service for little girl found dead in Toronto dumpster’ Now some will gasp in horror, some will react overly emotionally, yet is that fair? I am seemingly unwavering in my lack of emotions. I have no idea who the child is and the people over there in Canada are reacting, some more emotional then others. Yet from a basic point of view there is the stage of why should we care? Don’t get me wrong, if you care fine, nothing against it. I have no children, never had them so the first emotional block is not there. Then there is the realisation of all the paperwork that hits a person when a relative, sibling or child dies. At times I wonder why people care more about the ‘after’ care than the actual care. The fact that at present no one has a clue who this child was proves my point. CBC gives us “Investigators don’t believe the girl was ever reported missing to police in Canada.” This is not on the investigators, but consider that this child has been gone for well over a year and no one noticed any missing child in their direct vicinity. This is an issue. Was the child illegally there? That is a possibility. I do think that if she was not illegally there, then there is an optional security issue. The child’s existence could be used to get a fake person into Canada. Then we get Michelle Miller-Guillot, a member of the Rosedale Presbyterian Church stating “Every child deserves a name, every child deserves to leave this earth with dignity, with some honour” this is a fair believe to have and it is fine to have it, but at times I wonder if that is true in Christianity, why do we see the mention of Canadian Indian residential school gravesites nearly everywhere? What dignity and honour was bestowed on them? We see quotes like “between 3,200 and 6,000 students died while attending the Canadian Indian residential school system. The exact number remains unknown due to incomplete records.” So no records? The Anishinabe of Wauzhushk Onigum Nation, comes from one of several searches underway at former Indigenous schools across Canada and in that setting (source: NY Times) gives us that this has happened for a century, so where is the honour and dignity there? 

So was this all about a child in a dumpster, or is it about something more? But thee is one thing that bothers me, the original inhabitants of the America’s (US and Canada) have throughout history discarded their native inhabitants in many ways, as did the UK convicts (Australians) to the aboriginals. History (and christians) were not kind on original inhabitants of land and one child in a dumpster will not bring that out, but it needs to come out. Over 30 Native American tribes are now extinct. Just out of curiosity, how many people got the history lesson in Primary or High School regarding the California genocide? I reckon that this number is pretty low, I can tell you that internationally it never showed up in our curriculums as far as I am aware of. I only learned about the aboriginal slaughter through a movie called ‘Quigley Down Under’ (1990) a gem with Tom Selleck and the late Alan Rickman. What we did in the past matters and it is becoming more and more important to realise that when we look at places like the middle east. We are hard pressed to get some flaky Human rights report like “Access Now and Global Partners Digital are proud to launch a new report, Evading accountability through internet shutdowns: Trends in Africa and the Middle East”, yet the reality is that Christians were great at that for centuries going all the way back to Tomás de Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of the Tribunal of the Holy Office (1483-1498) as such we have plenty of dirty laundry in our baskets, not to mention of the well over a thousand of clergy that had a go at the minors in their churches. So why are we up in arms about this child? Is it because it happens under the eyes of the law and administrations? It did not do the thousands of First Nationals attending the Canadian Indian residential school system any good, did it?

Just some food for thought as you leave Monday behind, ready to entertain Tuesday your attention.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Religion

A state of banking

Yes, the banking issues remain and they are seemingly getting worse. This is seen in the BBC (at where we are given ‘Credit Suisse: Asia investors sue Switzerland over bank collapse’, which reads funny, but that is the effect of lawsuits. Yet that article and the BBC article (at named ‘£55bn withdrawn from Credit Suisse before rescue’ gave me reason to pause. This was not some setting of chance. Can you grasp how much £55,000,000,000 is? That is not some account, some people. That is the works of a few titans and someone gave THEM the heads up. So when we are given “The Swiss banking giant said 61.2bn Swiss francs left the bank in the first three months of the year” there I an issue, this is not merely a bank run. Then this many multimillionaires are running for the hills, someone set the watchtower on fire and stated, run for your life. Yes, it is highly speculative, but 55 billion pounds? That is serious cash in any economy. So when we consider the first article and we see “Already a Credit Suisse client for several years, he bought around $500,000 worth of bonds in January despite the bank having been hit by a series of scandals and compliance problems over the past few years” as well as “The type of bonds he bought from Credit Suisse are known as AT1 bonds, or contingent convertibles. They normally carry high yields for investors but are considered among the riskiest bonds that banks issue”, so in January this person decided to take a high risk setting, and in that time, or at least over the next 6 weeks when a staggering amount of billions pulled out, that person sat still? I know there is a sucker born every minute, but this comes across as the emperor of all suckers. Then we get the mother of all issues “Central to their claim is who was given priority when the bank failed. The terms of the bonds, seen by the BBC, show that bondholders are, if possible, supposed to be compensated first, after which come shareholders. But in practice, shareholders were allowed to exchange their Credit Suisse shares for UBS shares, albeit at a vastly reduced value.” There we see two parts. The first is ‘if possible’ which is a dangerous subjective term, the second is the stage of when they were alerted? How reachable were they?

Then the second article gives on tiny sliver. It is “Credit Suisse had been loss-making and had faced a string of problems in recent years, including money laundering charges.” As such, at what moment in delusional time is buying bonds in a loss making company a good idea? That is beside all the legal issues (including money laundering). In which situation (when it is not a government) are you investing in bonds in something that is losing money? Those in March (if they had done their homework) would have seen dozens of billions of pounds leaving that ‘sinking’ vessel. Only those with a peculiar sense of delusion are setting their up their portfolio in such a place. And when we see the end of the article giving us “The deal, when it was announced, valued Credit Suisse at $3.15bn (£2.6bn), whereas on the Friday before the settlement was reached it had been valued at about $8bn.” A place that is a mere 32% of its value in a week and 55 billion went the way of water whilst the bank went the way of the dodo. When a bank is a mere 8 billion and 55 billion left its shores? Even if half leaves the shores, I would be running like Forest Gump and no chocolates would be required. So I ask you are these investors that banked on governments saving their coin (and hide)? Is that what governments do now, all whilst they fail to hold banks to account?

I will let you decide, enjoy the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

What’s the play?

That is the question I had before and again now when I read the AL Monitor article (at There we see ‘Saudi Arabia seizes 12.7 million Captagon pills in pomegranate bust’. Now any nation will have drug problems, it is almost a fact of life. Some will give in and try it. But consider that the population of Saudi Arabia is almost 36 million. As such this shipment represents the ability to get a third of the nation high. And it leaves me with questions. Did these people want to get caught? Consider the simple setting. When you are dopey the dealer, you might be able to sell 100-200 pills at best. Perhaps in some areas of Aramco, near the monotone drilling (a pure speculation from me) perhaps 400 pills. To get that much pills implies a distribution system with 31,750 dealers. I know too little about Saudi Arabia to make that call, but if we adhere to statistics then the idea that Saudi Arabia has more than 500 dealers is almost preposterous and when consider the numbers something does not add up. So are these drug smugglers looking to get arrested? I reckon that it might be decently easy to hide 1000 pills in a pomegranate shipment, perhaps even 2000-3000, but twelve million? So I had questions and this is not the first time I see an article pass by like that, I had questions then too, but to be honest, this is a niche market I absolutely do not care about. So we see that two Egyptians, one Syrian and one Yemeni national were arrested. Four people from different nations (more questions) and as such they ‘thought’ to strike it rich? As such we get more “The highly addictive substance travels through Jordan to reach Gulf states, where it has been a drug of choice among disenfranchised youth, particularly in Saudi Arabia.” This gives us more, you see some numbers give us that this group contains 4.79 Million people, yet drug users tend to be male, so it is merely 50% of that and they ship enough to cover 100% of that group many times over? This makes zero sense, yet the idea that someone is TRYING to create a drug problem in Saudi Arabia, that partially makes sense (but the shipment is at least 1000% too big), yet that is also speculation from me. Moreover when you consider the setting, optionally smuggling via Yemen instead of Jordan makes more sense to me. There are a whole range of questions that shape in my head, but they are all related to the first premise, what is the actual plan here, because this is not an approach that any drug dealer would go for. To keep 3-5 years of evidence somewhere in their place of ‘trust’? The article also gives us “In March, Saudi Arabia seized 4.6 million amphetamine pills hidden in a shipment of ceramic toilets, sinks and washbasins and arrested a Jordanian national.” I seemingly more discrete amount, but still way above the normal amount. I wonder if they are also investigating in Saudi Arabia what the plan was of these four dopes, because this is not about a simple drug heist, this much amphetamines implies a very different stage and I can only speculate (which I will not do) on what that plan is, but consider the cost of these pills, the cost to create and what kind of incomes these 4 people had. When you add the elements up you come to the same conclusion as I did. This was about something else. Perhaps the drugs were a diversion? When you go back to some sources, one gave me “One Chinese website even advertises a “captagon tablet press” for $2,500 that can spew out tens of thousands of pills an hour. For a few dollars” this comes with the added question of the cost of the chemicals and the added source gives me “A Captagon pill costs just a few cents to produce in Syria or Lebanon” then consider that the maker would charge perhaps $0.50 per pill, that implies that the shipment represented a little more than $6,000,000. So where did these four dopey’s get that much money? And that is on the premise I hold, should the cost be $1 per pill (seems more likely) especially when the implied street value in Saudi Arabia is $20, the cost marker shifts buy a lot, so is one of these 4 wealthy? I personally doubt it.

Yet when you consider these elements the entire shipment of over 12 million pills makes less and less sense. This was not a simple drug shipment, or a simple smuggling operation. This is about something more and I wonder what I would find if I start data mining that evidence. From smuggling routes to financial data and that is before we consider that Saudi Arabia starts asking questions from the Syrian or Lebanese governments, they both would be in serious hot waters if they were in any way aiding drug smuggle into Saudi Arabia and still the largest question remains open: “Why that much drugs?” I end with a lot more questions than I had before the article and I reckon some Saudi’s might have the very same questions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law