Category Archives: Law

April 26, 2013 · 01:27

The press has another go

It is always fun to see a repeat of what has been there already. So I was not that surprised watching Sky News and getting another press approach for their regulations. They found another person to step in front of the camera. They made sure that this time there is an utter lack of arrogance. It turned into a casually moment of pointing blame on the politicians. In this case it was John Witherow from the Times. Well, the message is actually simple Mr Spokesperson we the people do not trust you at present!

All this is happening right when another editor of the Sun is being charged (Duncan Lacombe).

So we have the journalists in a corner for a change, oh goody! THEIR view of ‘the people have a right to know‘ has so far seemed to be nothing less than the option to overrule the people’s privacy at a moment’s notice.

It is of course an issue listening to Sky News for the simple reason that they are journalists themselves. Things seem to be pressed on one side and trivialised on the other. I still hang to the original idea that the Leveson report should completely be implemented with a (non-)political option of legislation.

Before you judge me to be against freedom of speech then you are wrong. I am all for freedom of the press, yet the Murdoch crowd (sorry for generalising this) has proven that their freedom to do whatever they like should not be an option even again. You see, one side we have the freedom of speech and on the other side we have the right to privacy, which too often is crushed by the press stating ‘the people have a right to know‘, whilst in reality it is just about making the quick visible exclusive visibility and their need of ego at the expense of anything else.

Issues that also surfaced (the Milly Dowler case) is yet another example. In that case not only was there no investigation, there is even more issues with a police force that as stated by sky news on April 25th ‘has a case of collective amnesia‘.

Or as quoting a line by the Guardian of April 24th 2013 “while a former senior officer from Surrey police said the press was ‘untouchable and all powerful’“. So not only is the press doing whatever it likes, it is interfering with police investigations, like they are the flipping ‘Special Branch’ (since 2006 known as SO15). Perhaps Commander Richard Walton could confirm whether the press is currently on their pay roll, which would allow for some awesome cost cutting solutions. Mr David Cameron would be so pleased.

We might never know what happened in the case of Milly Dowler. It is not unlikely that the phone hacking resulted in a loss of messages. Lost voice mail messages that could have assisted the Surrey Police department in their investigation. It is interesting that I read in the Guardian “An NoW journalist (name redacted)” It is interesting how that Journalist was redacted. So, Mr Witherow, how about the option of name redaction to be removed as a right for Journalists? How about an open name and shame issue where those people who seemed to have harassing the Surrey Police to be openly known to all. By your own words: ‘the people have a right to know‘.

My bigger issue is with some of the points mentioned (I will be playing the devil’s advocate here).

 1. A majority of independent members on all the bodies of the new regulator, with open and transparent appointments.
– My worry is that those appointments might not be as independent as we would like.

2. Public involvement in how the new Code of Practice will be framed.
– My worry is that this is one certain way to get loopholes placed and more of an issue is the delay that this public involvement brings. Delays the press would love to see going on and on and on.

I do agree that regulation should remain outside of the reach of politicians. Yet, adding regulations, even if it was a clear regulation to the conduct of the members of the press is needed. This is the part all media seem to be fighting, as they seem to prefer to remain footloose, fancy free and non-accountable. This is where I am no longer on their side (as the evidence over the last few has proved).

Yet, there is another side to journalism which I do not want to ignore. For every 500 half-baked phone mail chasers that call themselves ‘investigative jounalists’ there will be a real journalist like Paul Lewis or David Bergman (that group is larger than these two, but a lot smaller than most might realise). Here is the crux as they say. I would not want to hinder a journalist like David Bergman, or those hoping to step in his footsteps. Yet, the kind of ‘writers’ that many have been confronted with in the past, especially celebrities and victims of high profile cases there is one journalist that is there to dig into the shady sides of people, collecting specific information in whatever way they can to uncover the truth and the reality.

This reminds me of a scene in the West wing Season 2 episode ‘War Crimes’:
Will: “I don’t like being a stenographer. And I don’t like writing gossip. I read a column last week where a lady bemoaned the decade of scandals she’s had to cover, as if the news was to blame for the quality of journalism. I don’t know if there’s ever been a more important time to be good at what I do. Can you imagine how much I don’t give a damn about what Toby said to a staffer?“

It makes my point stronger then I could (it is Aaron Sorkin at his best). Too many Journalists are way too happy to cover gossip and get their stardom visibly shown in any way they can. The environment made them that way and it must change. I am still baffled by the issues, delays and opposition against the Leveson report. If anything, that report shows the weaknesses and also called for proper legislation and regulation to protect the privacy of people (without stopping the freedom of speech). Of course this is not what the press wants as they want to just do, post and publish whatever they like, especially when it is about ratings and circulation.

The only thing that is currently interesting is that at present politicians are trusted more than journalists are. Who would have ever thought that such a day would ever become a reality?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

April 18, 2013 · 17:15

Jamie Foxx showed more!

Even though there is a lot to talk about, and more will be talked about. This first part is something I feel quite strong about. It all started with the MTV movie awards. I used to be a movie buff. Being able to see one movie a week on the big screen is what I still consider the good life.
I was watching the awards, noticing Jamie Foxx wearing a t-shirt. The text as the letters ‘N’ and ‘O’ were in red would read as “Know Justice – Know Peace” and “No Justice – No Peace”. I thought it was a clever t-shirt the way it was brought. There were pictures on the t-shirt and that is all where I left it. That is, until the day after when I saw all over social media (Facebook/Google+) the racist remarks Jamie Foxx was subjected to. It was quite fascinating how that t-shirt turned a group of Americans in Racist Bigots, a statement that might be slightly too synonymous.

So this is how I learned that this is all linked to the Trayvon Martin case. I had heard of those events, as they even made the news here on our small island of Australia (only island with 35,876 km beach front). Jamie’s T-Shirt implies that he is speaking out for the deceased young man Trayvon Martin, and that is all fair and good. It is always good to see the Hollywood limelight take a decent look at social matters, so I started to take another look at this case.

The shortest (and not so correct) look would be that a Neighbourhood watch coordinator notices a suspicious person and calls the police. When the police arrives it turns out that the Neighbourhood watch coordinator has shot the man in self-defence. The dead person is Trayvon Martin. The man responsible for shooting him is let go after 5 hours at the police station.

This way too short story is the start of a lot of issues.

Now let us take a deeper look at the events as they are currently known.

Let us take a look at the victim. The young man Trayvon Martin (from now on referred as TM) was on that day still 17 years old. He was a High School student in Miami Gardens (which is in the North of Miami city). That day he was visiting that location with his father where his father was visiting his fiancée. He had been there a few times before. So, TM had a clear reason for being there and according to some of the information, he was walking back to his father’s Fiancée’s place coming from a convenience store.

There are all kinds of information coming from area’s regarding school suspensions (plural) and other issues. Yet, the question becomes on what this have to do with the actual case. Character assassination might be regarded as good form in the court. Yet, in my humble opinion, that is the approach you take when you need to get someone OFF the hook. Not when there is clear evidence of a transgression, where there was clear evidence of self-defence.

The information (as I have so far seen it):

  1. Shows that TM was unarmed
  2. Shows that he was on route back from a convenient store
  3. He had been there before and on route to the house of a ‘relative’ (he was shot less than 65 meters from that place).

 

These clear points seem to have been made.

The evidence against the shooter Mr George Zimmerman (from now on referred as GZ) is of another nature. No matter if he is a neighbourhood watch coordinator.

From that side we see that he noticed TM was noticed by GZ. He called the sighting in to the police and the report states that TM was very suspicious in his view and GZ made several emotional responses in regards to seeing TM.

From the information that I know now (the police might not have had all the information at that time) there is still a collection of facts that make it questionable why GZ would have been released after only 5 hours. This is at best manslaughter in defence, at worst this was cold blooded murder.

If GZ was a real neighbourhood watchman then chasing after him was pretty pointless. I agree that I am unfamiliar with that area. Yet, the police was called. The police would respond and his job would have been done. Unless he had ACTUAL knowledge that someone was in immediate danger, the only thing he should have done was waiting for the police. So we have a case where GZ had a 9mm semi-automatic weapon. TM had no weapon at all. This reads more than just amateur hour. This does not read like a case against gun control. It reads like a case against Neighbourhood watch looking to satisfy some quick justice.

But I am digressing.

On April 12th 2012 GZ was charged with second degree murder.

The media soon after took over and from part of the info I read it seems that this case is getting flooded with historical ‘evidence’ of many sides. The case will go to trial in June 2013, so June will see a lot of heated debates. From my view towards this case my points are the following:

  1. Why did GZ did not keep his distance? EVEN if TM was there with no good intentions, he knew he had been spotted so he would not stay there. If that had been done TM would be alive and there would be no issue at all.
  2. GZ was armed. By keeping a safe distance he would never have been in danger at any point. Even IF there was danger, he could have shot his attacker in the leg, which meant no fatalities, and people tend to stop being a threat when shot in the leg.
  3. The fact that TM was shot from a distance LESS than half a metre away.
  4. The statement that GZ was not to follow and the response that GZ did not have to follow TM was not a legally binding advice is an interesting approach.

I see this as debatable. It could be seen that GZ was out for ‘blood’. By inviting to be seen as a threat he could make TM act out as TM was in danger trying to defend himself and as such GZ had the option to shoot TM and look like a hero. I agree that I am speculating here. These facts and more are all to be spoken of the trial and it is up to a jury to decide whether he is guilty or innocent. The trial is where this comes to a point. This will flame a massive amount of racial outbursts.
If the social media is anything to go by, then the US will be in for a rough ride comes next June. It does not just stop with social media however. NBC fired several people involved with editing the tapes they had on the events (9-1-1 telephone call). In this it seems that they intended to paint Mr Zimmerman in a negative way. So, there seems to be little doubt in my mind that racial issues in America are still far from over. Having a Non-Caucasian President seems to have changed way too little.

The part I do feel strong about is that this is not, and should not be about gun control. From my view, whether right or wrong Mr George Zimmerman SHOULD have listened to the 9-1-1 dispatcher. I still believe that guns do not kill people. In this case stupid people kill people. Many people will see this as gun control. At that point consider. If TM was killed in ‘self-defence’ with an axe, does this mean the US will need to have Axe control?

Getting back to the Mr Jamie Foxx issue of social awareness. I think he had every right to wear that T-Shirt. I believe that being socially aware is a good thing. To wear it on such a day, where you can inspire an entire generation to be(come) socially aware is a good thing, and as such I say ‘Well done Mr Foxx!’

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , ,

April 13, 2013 · 14:47

Cold War Two?

When we look at the news and other media, then we see immigration issues on many levels and in many nations. There is no denying that every nation has its own issues with immigration.

Here in Australia there has been an uneasy issue with refugees for a long time. Many claim that options could be found, especially when processing off-shore, yet the initial issue was clear that this could never be done as it breached humanitarian law. Yet, only one year later PM Julia Gillard seems to look at additional options to press this solution once more.

The issue that brings this to the top of the list is the issue that the NOS reported in the case of the Russian Dolmatov, which was also reported by Fox News and the BBC. The BBC was even so clever to put the word suicide within quotes. Perhaps they have the same concerns I have. Was this truly just a suicide, or are these levels of miscommunications set to such an unusual level that more is going on? Perhaps some of the involved parties were doing Putin a personal favour? Before we consider this to be another thought of conspiracy theory, let us take a look at the facts involved.

First
The Dutch IND (Immigration and Naturalisation services) conveniently concluded that Dolmatov’s life was not in danger should he return to Russia. Perhaps they want to rethink their status? If a band like Pussy Riot, likely nothing more than a nuisance can get placed in a small cell, then someone with ACTUAL knowledge of Russian missile systems could be regarded as a more serious issue to Russia, only fuelling the evidence that wrong calls were made.

Additional evidence was shown by the Dutch Newspaper NRC where information was brought that there was information that the FSB tried to recruit Dolmatov. Whether that part can be proven, it does clearly indicate that Dolmatov’s return to Russia would have much further reaching consequences. There is no doubt in my mind that these facts should have been in the IND report and as such this entire immigration process would have taken another turn from day 1. If these facts were intentionally ignored or omitted, then the question becomes, were these facts tampered with, and by whom for what reason?

In the rebuttal, if those facts by NRC were incorrect then even so, the fact that he was a visible activist against the Putin administration was a known fact. The fact that the Russian police had been actively engaging anti-Putin protests is well known. Several newspapers had reported on some anti-Putin activists to be jailed for terms in excess of four years.

We see support to the status as it SHOULD have been in: “Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”

For this we look at the General principles (31).

“The inclusion clauses define the criteria that a person must satisfy in order to be a refugee. They form the positive basis upon which the determination of refugee status is made.”

That document also states that: “There is no universally accepted definition of “persecution”, and various attempts to formulate such a definition have met with little success. From Article 33 of the 1951 Convention “it may be inferred that a threat to life or freedom on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group is always persecution“.

So we seem to have a proven point. The Netherlands did sign that charter and it even specifically states that the Netherlands extended the application to Aruba. With additional evidence from Dutch press sources (the NRC is often regarded as one of the highest quality sources in Dutch Journalism), I can come to no other conclusion that this was NOT just an administrative (data entry) error.

Second
I was stated in the Dutch NOS newscast that the immigration police did not mention the right that he was allowed to have his own lawyer. Such a basic right omitted? Can we deduce that there is a structural problem?

This can be supported by a report in a case that was judged in November 2006 where was stated “in een geval waarin ervan wordt uitgegaan dat het aan verweerder – de IND of de politie – te wijten is dat geen advocaat bij het gehoor aanwezig was, sprake is van schending van het recht op rechtsbijstand. De rechtbank verwijst daartoe naar artikel 5.2, vijfde lid, Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 en artikel 18 van de Grondwet.”

[Translation]: in a case where the defendant (the IND or police), that no legal representation was present at the interview is a transgression on the right of legal aid. The bench refers to article 5.2 paragraph 5 of the refugee act 2000 and article 18 of the constitution.

There is additional evidence to state that the IND has had its failings longer than that. Can we therefor reject the assumption that this is ‘just’ miscommunication as was reported? This gives a view by both Gertjan Bos (Chief inspector of Security and Justice) and Fred Teeven (Secretary of Security and Justice) as insincere and an utter fail. The words by Gertjan Bos where he was unable to answer whether better dealing with the situation would had a different result cannot be answered as something too funny to consider to be a serious response.

The first seems to clearly prove that Dolmatov did make pass the requirements of Refugee. As such, as the detainment of Dolmatov was unjust, it would already be evidence that reason of a possible ‘suicide’ is no longer an issue.

Third
The NOS reported that Dolmatov had already tried a first attempt to take his own life, after which no physician was assigned to his case. That in itself is a failing too. This does have a two sided issue. On the one hand there was a suicide risk and no proper care was taken, which is an even worse ‘foo foo’ point for the government. Yet on the other side, the responses that there was pressure and intimidation in regards to Dolmatov taking his life is also an issue, as there is no mention that this pressure was there in the first attempt (or at least so it seems to be the case).

So, are the Dutch dealing with a failed IND system, or was this all a very convenient solution for the Russians. The fact that the Dutch government is very vocal in accepting blame after a three month investigating is not strange. So that is not a factor. What is a factor is that Secretary Teeven did not want an investigation into the dealings of the IND after the murder of evicted Serbian Kosanovic only a month before the Dolmatov case hit.

The NOS did report that Secretary Teeven will adopt the findings in regards to the Dolmatov report. Yet, part of the newscast is a worry, where this has been set as a failing with inaccurate computers and miscommunication. Blatant right violations seem to be at the centre of this all and as such we could deduce that the IND has a strong infrastructure failure where the rights of refugees are set. I read more than one article where it is stated that the IND prefers to do a first interview WITHOUT legal representation, as to ascertain whether a person is a true refugee. This is fair enough, yet, in a legal state, such a solution should be regarded as inferior. This I voice as we know that many western nations have a high amount of freedom and refugees come from places where these rights are missing. This means that refugees who are trying to escape a place of intimidations (often worse) as placed in a setting where they are highly intimidated. They are in their own job interview where failing the interview would mean certain death. Would you not be intimidated?

Going back to the Dolmatov case. There was an interesting mention made by the Amsterdam Herald on the 4th of April. There it stated the following: “Ludmilla Doronina, Dolmatov’s mother, said that as the note went on the style became less recognisably her son’s. Towards the end it contains an elementary spelling mistake which she insists he would never have made. ‘On the first page every comma is in the right place,’ she told Dutch state broadcaster NOS. ‘I think he wanted to give a sign that this had been written under the influence of something or someone.’”

I mention this as I found it. I am not sure how reliable this is, yet as the Amsterdam Herald seems to be the only source, some question marks should be added. I do wonder if any of the Journo’s took a serious look at those insinuations. It does not matter whether the mother is an emotional source (some papers live on emotions). It is a fact that could support or reject certain issues currently under discussion.

In the end we are left with an interesting question. If refugee issues are mounting up, and in this case where a nation as evolved, liberal and free as the Netherlands has a failing of this magnitude. Should we worry about certain issues that are now visibly in play all over the commonwealth?

Is this the second cold war? A war that decides who gets to live in freedom? For if freedom is a right subjected to conditions then what defines freedom and what is the future of any refugee?

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 1, 2013 · 00:46

60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!

We knew that the played situation of the Cyprus deal seemed to have a few more angles than foreseen. We saw the two-step dance routine by Jeroen Dijsselbloem and Christine Lagarde. We saw the final second meeting and agreements after hours of delay until the negotiations were set with its back against the wall. We saw the hard felt news on those Cypriots. Some of them were defiant; some of them were blaming different parties. The last part is all good and fine. But the news as stated on BBC and other stations now mention that those owning over 100,000 Euro, are likely to lose up to 60%.

A number of enormous strangling events have been placed in effect; ready to make sure that the money does not get out of Cyprus.

So what is wrong with this picture of the bail-out? Part of me does not disagree that a hefty price is to be paid. There is a very good run down to be seen on the BBC site at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16290598

It gives a short and to the point timeline. So you all should check this out.

You see, the press might not be asleep at the wheel, yet, even after all these high pea-cock statements about the freedom of the press and the need for self-control and no charter and all these other statements of ‘fact’ as to what they should be allowed to do, seem to remain EXTREMELY quiet in regards to the underlying facts of Cyprus at present. We know they ran into trouble when they took massive losses on the Greek government bonds. So, the Cypriot situation had been known about for a long time.

This brings us all to an interesting question. With the Greeks all getting over 150 billion Euros in bail-outs and THEIR bank customers not being cut, how come the Cypriots are getting sliced to this degree? More important, how come these sides of information in regards to press freedom did not make it to the newspapers to the extent it should have been shown?

So, the bailing out bank in Cyprus, if given 2% out of that Greek tragedy could have prevented the need for many savers to be chopped. Let us not forget that the Greek bailout in total has topped 320 BILLION Euro and it is Cyprus who had bought some those Greek bonds (amongst others) that got them into this mess to some extent.

This had nothing to do with Chancellor Merkel or Germany itself (who many seem to blame). This situation seems to show an almost basic lack of arithmetic skills with many parties. How interesting that this did not come up in the Dijsselbloem-Lagarde show of statements and posturing. This is NOT to blame them; I am just asking a few questions.

More important, the fact that this had been going on since 2010, means that either a few people are dropping not one ball, but several left, right and centre. Or the game played is about a whole lot more than just a bail-out. There is the additional issue, which is that bankers are allowed to too much of wielding, weaving and transferring issues that should have been out in the open for others to be judged of before this all was allowed. There is NO way in my mind that this could not have been prevented if proper steps had been taken by several parties. Consider that even in the final days that Cyprus was flaunting options to gas reserves to several parties including the Russians. Could this not have been done sooner? Several businesses in Europe and US could have stepped in in this attempt to raise businesses. If we can believe the voice President Obama about moving forward the US economy, than the fact that they have not been loudly all over this option seems odd, irregular and in my mind definitely questionable. So are these gas reserves for real or was this a quick Cypriot horse to open the IMF bank vaults? (The Trojan horse was already used in Troy).

In the first degree:
The Cyprus government had a first responsibility to take firm control. When the banks are over 85% of your GDP, a government does not get to look out of a window, blow their nose, then state ‘Did we miss something?‘ This level of utter incompetence (for a lack of a better word) is beyond belief. To me this reeks strongly of two partners (politicians and bankers) enabling each other, and then settling others with the bill. The issue for me is that there has been a total lack of transparency. That evidence becomes a lot stronger if we consider that their bad fortune is linked to borrowing to Greece. So when were those government bond deals done, and why were they not dealt with when they were giving hundreds of billions in Euro’s to clean up the Greek issue?

In the second:
All this reads like banks are moving huge chunks of money from place to place (or from loan to loan), with likely 1-2 executives getting a decent (read 7 figure number) commission out of that. Could this thought be true? (I was making a commercial assumption there). So why are these transactions not a lot more open and visible? This question should be taken a lot more seriously when you consider the 2004 and 2008 bank burns. Beyond that we are now likely to see a bail-out strategy between 2010 and 2013 that is more than just flawed. This entire implementation of bad banks will haunt us all down the track.

And should you consider that the money moves are not happening (which might be fair enough), then consider that people do NOT stick their necks out to THAT degree without a decent pay check behind that. These people would have known that there was a decent danger of bankrupting a nation. So whatever the deal was, it would have needed to be mucho sweet for whoever was adding his signature at the bottom.

Now let us look back at those points. The press has been too blatantly absent from all this. Yes, groups like BBC and Guardian have been active, but these are just two of a very small group that is actually digging deep. Most parties seemed to have repeated very little more than the Reuters newsflash, with all these hundreds of investigative journalists that seem to be all over the place does that not seem a little strange? Add to this the famous Cyprus bailout press meeting. How Mr Dijsselbloem was carefully phrasing abstracts like structures and solutions. Yet, until the Guardian asked their question, the ‘solution’ bad-bank seemed to be pussy footed around. Even after that, that phrase was carefully circumvented as much as possible by all parties.

This is why this last blog reads a lot more emotional than the other ones. From my point of view it is a simple approach. We are being managed. The situation is managed to a certain degree, the events are managed to a certain degree and the Cyprus Crises is shown in details, but people tended to focus for the most on the emotional parts. The people, their savings and the daily impact the banks had on their lives. A real proper timeline that gives us an account on how it drove itself over the edge is often sketchy. I find it all too sketchy.

Last is a smaller element which was reported in News.com.au on the evening of March 30th “Lawmaker Mavrides, meanwhile, confirmed that a committee appointed by President Nicos Anastasiades would investigate a list published by Greek media of Cypriot politicians who allegedly had loans forgiven”. This is a smaller part, yet, that means that there is more than just one link where politicians are making personal deals with bankers is not really that far-fetched. We should wait until the facts are investigated and reported, however, that investigation might take a lot longer with all the issues around. It does however give more credence to my earlier statement regarding the interaction between bankers and politicians.

Should you doubt me? That is fair enough!

Consider another avenue. On 30th November 2010 Jullian Assange revealed that the next target of his whistle-blowing website will be a major U.S. bank. The same date a red notice was issued by Interpol. It was around that time that the hunt for Assange intensified by a lot. Perhaps the one bank was just the beginning? If we look back at the issues we know now, then there is a chance that someone made mention of the LIBOR percentage tweaking issue.
If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and US combined) then that difference would be $112T.

I would love to get 1% finder fee of that! It would make me the FIRST Trillionaire in history (not bad for a person only dreaming to be a Law Lord some day).

This is however not about greed (I would be happy to settle on 1% of 1% of that amount), it is about the amounts that are in play here. We knew about the LIBOR percentage manipulation games played and those fines are still being sent out to the involved banks during this year. Yet the total amount does not seem to be under investigation. At least, not by a range of those loud shouting reporters we heard so much about in the last 6 months (who keep on shouting on how unfair Lord Justice Leveson was). When you look at the total value then you will read about statements of complications, non-clarity and other statements that give way to non-revealing reports. Interesting that something THIS important seems to be lacking transparency.

All this connects straight back to the IMF and Eurozone issues in play. For the chosen few it is extremely important that the slow waltz controlled by Mr Dijsselbloem and Mrs. Lagarde continues as is. Because this is NOT about what George Soros says in Inside Job (2010) “We have to dance until the music stops“. This same analogy was used in the movie Margin Call (2011). It is however the issue that in our reality the dance itself is the nightmare that keeps many financial institutions up at night. The moment that proof of large scale manipulations becomes visible (and proven) to the many, that is the moment Wall Street ends, the US goes bankrupt and our way of life stops quite literally. At that point it all stops. Then what?

So why not regulate these banks in tougher Draconian ways? These situations go beyond normal. Well, consider that there is not just the chance to lose a lot; there is the potential for these banks to win big. The problem becomes that the speculating approach banks have taken could be seen as one casino with too many independent well trained quality gamblers. To continue to remain in existence the banking system needs two factors.

First they need the one point advantage like in Blackjack (or the zero in Roulette); the second advantage is that they need more cash. This is the entire danger! The bank is no longer THAT rich and they are up against high stake gamblers who know the game through and through. So now their only playable assets left are the bonds no one wants and what is left of your pensions. So how long do you think you have any money left?

Last thoughts, how come the markets keep on going up? Financial markets are in the dump, Cyprus is in an utter depression, whilst the UK, the Netherlands, France, Spain and Italy remain in a state of recession. All these issues give me a clear impression that we are being managed in more ways than one.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 22, 2013 · 21:33

Asleep at the wheel of the banking industry?

Cyprus is fast spinning out of control. The banks are still closed; the people are near civil revolt. All this was not just implied by me; it seemed to me that these acts were clear as day. So are people asleep at the wheel of the Eurozone finance?

The problem is that I am not that overly intelligent. In addition, I never had a degree in economy. So what on earth are the parties involved up to?

Last night on the 21st another Cyprus meeting was set in motion. And here, now the new game comes into play. Yes, they might have an alternative! They have offered a solution opting with two banks, a good and a bad bank. (Source: NOS News) Is this it? Is this the wave that we will see? It seems that Goldman Sachs has been very active. It was Goldman Sachs who initially mentioned such a solution in a few cases. This included the SNS bank, however the solution was rejected there and it caused the nationalisation of the Dutch SNS bank. I spoke about this in an earlier blog, and likely you might have read it in a league of other sources discussing this.

As mentioned, I did not study economics, yet I am overwhelmingly against this solution. There is no denying that the Goldman Sachs boys (and girls) are loads more qualified than me in this field and this has to be solved by clever people. All this I agree with. Yet, sweeping loads of debt under a carpet so that those who created the debt to forget about it is not the solution. Getting rid of it by creating bad bank swaps is not a solution and to accumulate all these bad banks in an effort to offset the overvalued total global sum as set in LIBOR is not a solution either (even though that would have been VERY clever indeed).

The banks never ending ability to play quick and loose with bank funds at the expense of all their customers so that they can enjoy a quick raise in commission is clear evidence that after 4 years, doing nothing is just no longer an option. It is extremely frustrating to listen to politicians and journalists games for alleged infringement of their freedom to speech and the need for better budgets. The one party that needs some intense new levels of legislation is left alone to play the games they play.

Yesterday’s news on NOS, where we saw the head of the Eurozone finance ministers Jeroen Dijsselbloem getting flame baked by the German Peter Simon who is a member of the German Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. He went the route of dust, stating that he was taking responsibility for certain joint decisions. So is this all incompetence? If we consider that he met with Christine Lagarde earlier this week, it gives clear image that more is going on, because pardon my French, but she is one clever cookie. Should we therefore consider that they are considering another path?

I reckon that the entire SNS issue as it exploded earlier this year did not go the way certain groups wanted. Even then there were clear calls for the bad bank solution. It was stopped and the Dutch government stepped in by nationalising it all. It is not impossible that the bad bank solution was the only option from the beginning, however they not in a public position to offer it as a first option. The people would have to be a little more against the wall there (not the Cypriots, but the general population in the Eurozone). This is more than just a call. I think there are several reasons playing the field in regards to the bad bank issues.

Should you consider my thoughts to be wrong (which might be very valid), then consider the US eternal resistance against Russian activity in Western Europe. Now, there is utter silence when Russia is willing to come up with the billions saving the Cypriots and getting access to the Mediterranean Gas fields? There is no way that they would allow this, which means that either another tactic is played here, or the US is almost officially utterly bankrupt. (Not entirely unrealistic either).

It seems that this is turning into a Machiavellian play. A play where the banks hold the dagger that they are ready to stab straight into the backs of the people they should be protecting. Their own citizens! This is where the shoes are getting too tight to dance. The banks have not been a caring factor for their local population for a long time. It is all for greed, commissions and it all tastes sweeter on the international market. This is also a massive reason why it is harder and harder to get a mortgage. In the end the return on those investments does not yield the returns the banks are hungry for. This was clearly mentioned by several sources. They have been bending over backwards to not qualify customers for a mortgage. (Source: Trouw, a Dutch newspaper). Banks want to make money, lots of it. Mortgages just don’t slice the bread for a banker any more, leaving most of us all out in the cold.

So why am I against the bad bank? In itself, the bad bank could be a solution if people in charge would wake up and ACTUALLY get some true banking reforms in play. Stopping this group for needless risks should be punished severely. Like the press they claim to self-regulate, yet, like the press it is nothing less than a joke.

This was reported by CBS on May 14, 2012: “JPMorgan Chase’s admission last week that it lost more than $2 billion in one set of trades should be used as a wakeup call to end the practice of banks regulating themselves, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren said on Monday.”

This is only one of MANY of these reports in a period between 2008 and now. 2009 with the reports by Lord Turner, and even now, or even in six months’ time when more fines hit the LIBOR banks. Self-regulation does not work. Show me a person with greed and I show you a person who does not care about the rules and often does not worry about the consequences either. Banks are filled to the brink and drowned in resources motivated by greed. It is the same reason why the press cannot regulate their ranks. Their need for greed (size of publication) and their ego trip to get the news first is why phone hacking started in the first place.

Yet, a royal charter will not work for banks. They will walk away too often without any severe consequences (because most dealings are international). A clear need to legislate beyond draconian is the only solution for banks, which must happen on a vast international scale. Also, my thought is that any banks on the international trading floor should have at least have 20% vested in local mortgages. The reason is that it will give most banks a better level of stability, it will serve people actually having a chance to work on a future and in the last it will give many a peace of mind.

All this is needed BEFORE we start playing with the bad bank solution. If we can tie these banks down with draconian measures making these transgressors homeless, income-less and future-less is the only way to ensure that not only will the current banks behave, it will give a realistic chance of the debt for bad banks to be resolved and paid.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 19, 2013 · 17:07

Banking the blame game

Yes, it took less than 72 hours, but Cyprus has broken more than just a little all over Europe. There was always the issue is the situation that the numbers did not add up. Looking at the news as it hits us from Sky News, NOS, Wall Street, Reuters, CNN and a few other sources, we get the distinct impression that politicians have heard of the concept of a spread sheet. There is however a decent chance they have never seen one. Consider that these politicians were involved with the Cyprus deal, we should wonder in how much problems Europe currently is.

First is the issue on the uniqueness of the plan in the first place. Those who saved all their lives, high and low savers, all have to chip in to prevent Cyprus from going bust. So, in this situation the people will be taxed twice. Once on the average of their income their savings will be cut up to an extra 9.9%.

So, how did this get this weird? Well, reporters are giving us all kinds of reasoning; many of them make perfect sense. A good one was the issue that the bail out of Greece had to be paid by banks, and this is where Cyprus got into trouble. I am not judging whether it is ‘true’ or not, but there are two sides. I personally belief that this is NOT the full story and more has happened! The interesting part is that the side as mentioned is not given the visibility it should have. Yes, there is an issue, yes, a bail-out is needed. We can also see those reporters around an ATM with queues. Yet, this issue is naught compared to the question how the $12B is needed, and even more, as they scared people to lose faith in the banks and all are withdrawing of billions of Russian Cash, all really willing to take a hike to a safer banking place. Is no one wondering whether certain ‘made’ miscalculations were really this ‘unexpected’? This is what was stated by Bloomberg on the 16th: “‘Simply to leave Cyprus alone and see what happens would be, in my view, irresponsible‘, Merkel told reporters in the Belgian capital after a two-day European Union summit. In her wake, the finance officials arrived, along with European Central Bank President Mario Draghi and IMF chief Christine Lagarde, for the Cyprus talks.”

The other side is that, should this all be true, then the issue becomes that the bail-out of Greece is not just half baked. The solution the financial experts claim to be a solution, was not only not a solution, it is turning out to be a solution that is now dragging down other nations and the Eurozone as well. As markets opened, both Spain and Italy are feeling that like a painful stab in the back. Consider what was stated on Cyprus. They need $12B, they Cyprus is only 0.2% of the Eurozone economy. Whether they were given a bail out, can someone please explain how a market this small be such a financial tsunami creator?

Take the following facts into consideration

1. If the bailout of Greece has this effect on connected banks, what are the EEC and the IMF not telling us?
2. How can an economy this small be allowed to hold such a chunk of so much debt? Remember that the issues continued AFTER the bail outs. We can seriously ask questions on how the acts by the Eurozone ministers are cut down like this. Also interesting that a lot of this was never loudly questioned by members of the press either (if I am incorrect, please refer me to the evidence I missed and I will happily correct this).

3. The markets are now realising that the Eurozone issues are far from over. Bad management seems to be a clear factor. Perhaps that this scenario and the effects were always envisioned by certain players of the big money game! If so, what are they trying to do? Push savings from banks from place A to place B? Would they intentionally want to weaken banks, especially in Spain and Italy?

We could in my mind come to the thought that either the banks and the bailed out governments are in worse shape than ever reported and the IMF and its partners in managing the banking issues are deciding on issues behind closed doors, therefor missing issues that should have been dealt with, or it is not impossible that the lack of bank regulations on an international level are reason that there is no progress at present, and none is to be expected in the near future. More important, imply that part of this is either orchestrated, of that those in charge are a lot less competent then envisioned. There is one remote third option. I admit that this thought is far out there. What if money is ACTUALLY running out? Consider all these swaps, credit vouchers and derivatives. A derivative is a mathematical future. It is not real. If LIBOR represents, UK and US combined, a value of over $1000T (yes, trillions). Consider all the debt out there; no one can pay for it. What is really left? Traders, still dealing in make belief? Concepts and nothing seems real. Food is real, Land is real, and revenue COULD be real. All those governments all claiming to have so much, yet the US is minus 16T, UK is minus 1.5T, except for Germany, nearly ALL are deep in the negative. Now consider why Cyprus gets such a unique treatment. Is it about the $20 billion the Russians have stashed there? If so, then that would be a weird act, to endanger Euro markets to such a level. Those factors might give a little value to the third option I mentioned. I admit, it is a very thin line of thought.

People all over Cyprus are now considering the fact that their banks are all closed until Thursday. Cyprus seems to be hiding a larger secret. Part of this was reported. The issues on money laundering through Cyprus had been reported before, and last by CNN. This is hardly a secret. I know my lack of knowledge and my naive thought of replacing the ENTIRE banking management groups in ALL the Cyprus banks could have actually increased reliability. In addition, it would have given a strong message out to the banks too. None of this was done, no, the saving of people were initially cut, causing market unease. I feel there are enough thoughts proving more is going on than just a bail out.

Legally? The UK and Germany should step in setting up banking laws immediately (one common law and one civil law nation). Not the penny washing kind, but the kind that has sharp teeth. Real reforms start with laws and regulations. The Wall Street Journal reported by Lukas I Alpert reported this statement 4 hours ago: “Cyprus has always said it abides by international banking laws. Russia’s departing central bank chairman, Sergey Ignatiev, recently acknowledged that Russia saw illegal outflows of $49 billion in 2012”

Perhaps those international banking laws are a lot shakier then banks and politicians are willing to admit to.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 16, 2013 · 21:32

More phones on the hack

So, apparently the phone hacking scandal is far from over. Not only are more claims placed against Murdoch, there is also additional talks of other papers being involved in these matters.

This happens just as a royal charter on press regulations could end up getting vetoed by Nick Clegg.

There are definitely sides the parties do not agree on. Also mentioned in the articles from the Guardian is the response by Lloyd Embley, editor in chief for the Mirror. In an article by Mark Sweney he states: “the protracted talks could turn into a ‘political football’.” (article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/13/leveson-discussions-castrate-press-lloyd-embley)

He has a good point, instead of a few pollies thinking they know what they do, it seems decent, to follow Lord Justice Leveson who actually knows what needs doing. Lloyd Embley also states in that article “If we don’t get it right it will end up castrating the press“. To be honest, with all the new phone hacking allegations, making those editors members of boys choir ‘Mare Castratum’ does not seem to be an overly bad idea at present.

I am all for freedom of speech, yet it seems that those members seem to value the news and revenue at the expense of everything and everyone. This has all been said before (by me), but the part that is still lacking visibility is that the investigations will now run into the deep end of 2015. So, the taxpayer will be paying groups of police officers and members of the CPS to get through this mess. So, as the press seems to be lacking in professional issues like ethics. The issue that arrests were made on Thursday 13th March, including FORMER Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver. The arrest does not yet mean that Weaver is guilty (others were arrested too). There is now however a phase of damage control which likely falls largely on the desk of Lloyd Embley. With all his efforts in growing the Mirror brand on-line, it seems to me that he needs all this like a hole in the head.

There is however another side to this all. The Tories might find themselves out of the political office sooner rather than later. Reason for this is twofold. First there seems to be a breach between Nick Clegg and David Cameron. They do not seem to be in full agreement here and Labour seems to partner with Liberal Democrats as they seem to be fully in agreement with Lord Justice Leveson on the implementation of regulations.

So next week the PM will have a fun day as he tries to get past attempts to make press regulations to be too toothless. This is in my view the effect if the industry gets to vote on who is in charge of the watchdog that watches them. So Labour definitely has a point there. There is however another side we must not forget. It seems that there is a sizeable group of Tories who are pro-Leveson. This gives Labour a staggering amount of power. So, considering these facts, why would the PM try to continue his approach? Is it because of ideology? Consider that the Guardian reported last November that 30 Tories supported the Leveson report. Whether the all still support that remains to be seen, yet the idea of both sides of the isle supporting such a charter is not that common. Still, it could be a close call. Should labour truly unite, considering the 30 additional votes and perhaps even most from the group of Clegg (aka Liberal Democrats), then the chances of the Leveson report getting implemented would be really strong. The fact that Nick Clegg seems to align with Labour on this only increases the pressure on David Cameron.

This must be one of Rupert Murdoch’s worst nightmares!

Not only is he going to face additional time in the ‘dock’ answering questions regarding the new cases, there is every chance that anything he tries to state with a style of…. what is that word again? Ah yes, diplomacy, will send even more Tories breathing fire as they defect to the side of labour in this case. There is of course the risk that some labour members will actually not support the Leveson report. I did not see any strong voices of this, but it is possible. It seems however that David Cameron would need slightly more than 5% of labour to walk to his side if he is to avoid a not so slightly uncomfortable defeat.

This option seems however less and less likely. Consider other Tories like Lord Fowler (served during Dame Margaret thatcher’s cabinet), who gave his direct support against PM David Cameron in the British Huffington post last January and in favour of the Leveson report. Considering these facts and also considering that Lord Fowler is not the only Tory thinking this, why would the PM continue on the path he currently is on?

In the end should this all come to pass in favour of the Leveson report then Lord Justice Leveson will move as the  with an epic achievement as he becomes the new Chancellor of LJMU (Liverpool John Moores University).

My remaining worry? Whomever takes over from the Lord Justice needs to have the strong backbone the Lord Justice has shown. In addition, those new reported cases, who will sit in judgement when the Lord Justice moves to his new position in May 2013?

I am more than happy to volunteer, as it is on my road to become a law lord. However, I reckon I should finish my Law Masters first and after that at least half a dozen other achievements until the position of Judge of Appeal could be realistically mine. (We should however never ignore our dreams).

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

March 13, 2013 · 15:54

Conroy’s freedom of Speech

Conroy’s freedom of Speech

There have always been reasons to check out the front page banner of any newspaper. Some make us curious, some make us angry and some make us realise that the budgie cage needs cleaning. Whatever we think, we do tend to react to a banner.
So, like most people I also reacted. Now, personally I have a slightly less positive view on the Telegraph. So when a politician gets compared to Stalin, Jong-un, Mao Zedong and Castro, it tends to wake me up. My first thought being, now what is the media trying to get away with?

So I first took a little jump into what other media’s are stating and quoting. ABC quoted the following “He also announced plans to establish a new watchdog to ensure that media companies comply with independent journalism standards.”
In addition another newscast from ABC stated “The Federal Government has unveiled the long-awaited details of its proposal which enshrines media standards and tightens ownership regulation through an arms-length advocate to assess media mergers.”

This does not sound too bad, does it?

There is however opposition. ABC also mentioned the following “But independent MPs Andrew Wilkie and Rob Oakeshott have raised concerns about the laws. Mr Wilkie flagged the proposed public interest test for media ownership, saying the area is open to political interference.”

Both sides make clear arguments, yet, what is really at stake?

You see, from my point of view we need to do whatever we can so that we do not have to live and listen to the world according to Fairfax/Murdoch only. When there is a chance to keep the little ones in the field so that multiple views can be heard, the views we hear remain to be from a fair collection of voices.

For me there is another side that is not mentioned at present anywhere (or so at least it seems). Stronger self-regulations and stronger watchdogs were also clearly stated by Lord Justice Leveson. This issue is out far beyond the borders of Australia. The Leveson report is attacked by so many, yet this report shows how out of control the media is. Even though the report is focussed on the UK, there is a clear indication that the issue is playing FAR beyond those borders, and it is even an issue in nations NOT part of the Commonwealth where ‘Freedom of the press’ is nothing less than freedom to harass, freedom to stalk and freedom to display at the expense of everything and everyone for the need of profit and circulation. They however, refer to it as ‘the people have a right to know’.

The media seemed to be upset when the trials started, however I personally think that they seem to be more upset about the fact that they got found out mainly due to a trivial newscast in my humble opinion, than a ground breaking case of journalism.

Professor Ivor Gaber, professor of political journalism at City University London stated the following in his book ‘After Leveson’: “Many people have had much to say about the Leveson report, most of it pretty negative, but in his broad sweep of the relationship between the press and politicians, the good judge gets more right than wrong“.

As stated, the UK is in the middle of reforms halting and talks are breaking down at present. This was reported by the Guardian yesterday March 12th. So what is Senator Stephen Conroy about?
Well, first of all he is a politician and he is trying to get certain reforms in place. I would think that there is an Ego factor in place as well (let us not forget that he is a politician). If he pulls of certain reforms then not only will he look good to many many people. He will also be known as the man who was able to get reforms done, unlike his English counterparts, who are locked in a stalemate at present. So, I would say ‘Well done Stephen!’ at that point.

So is he a media dictator, or is he just in the way of a small group of upper level directors who need to fuel their altars devoted to money? That fair question is not really asked by the press is it?

He is quoted stating that the Australian people want the press to be held accountable. Is that so wrong? One side of the plans is to cut licensing fees in some instances so that the small players get a fair chance in this game. That part is supported by Independent senator Nick Xenophon. Xenophon mentioned in the same ABC story I quoted earlier that this part of the plan has merit. I reckon we can all agree that if the fees are too high, then the voice of Murdoch and Fairfax are all that remain at that point. This is NOT a good idea! Australians might agree that the small new players could bring us fresh artistic views in both news and media in general.

Consider the history of Oporto restaurant which was founded in 1986 by António Cerqueira. By media standards without the changes Conroy proposes, people like him might not exist in the future. We would be limited to Mac Donald and Hungry Jack. By giving smaller players a fair chance we get options, we will get to read and watch other opinions.

The plan of Conroy allows small media groups to reach a much larger audience in open honesty. That is one of his sides. So let us take a look at that. On the Department of broadband, Communication and Digital Economy the following issues were stated:

1. A press standards model which ensures strong self-regulation of the print and on-line news media.

2. The introduction of a Public Interest Test to ensure diversity considerations are taken into account for nationally significant media mergers and acquisitions.

3. Modernising the ABC and SBS charters to reflect their on-line and digital activities.

4. Supporting community television services following digital switchover by providing them a permanent allocation of a portion of Channel A.

5. Making permanent the 50% reduction in the licence fees paid by commercial television broadcasters, conditional on the broadcast of an additional 1460 hours of Australian content by 2015.

The first one is a good one. Giving the press some minimum standards cannot be a bad thing. He is NOT impeaching freedom of the press; he is basically stating that a minimum standard is required. In addition there is the part that the press would be held accountable. So when those ‘implied’ newsbytes, which call for rage and later are stated that they were ‘mis-communications’ might come to an end. I see this in the light of reading a newspaper and getting a much higher quality than a Facebook gossip byte. Is that a bad thing? In addition, do not forge that this is about self-regulation, not about government interference. Labor wants a real watchdog with teeth in place that monitors, not one that is government controlled. They want something better than a Chihuahua lapdog that yaps at time.

The second one is likely the one that keeps the big bosses of media awake for some time to come. This is about more than just the fear of big boys buying out the small ones and drown out smaller voices with the voice of the agenda of the big media owner. Make no mistake, that big media owner has an agenda. If you doubt that take a look at the front page of web search giant Yahoo. It is filled and almost drowning us with the Channel 7 views. Their branding, their ruling kitchen, their sunrise. Compare it to the American Yahoo page and see how small THAT American page is. Channel 7 is not the only one, make no mistake, they all do it in one form or another. When I personally interpret the second rule, I see a voice that states that diversity is always considered. This is to ensure that the smaller interest is never forgotten or ignored. Also, do not forget that no laws are broken here, the steps that Senator Conroy tries to implement is to make sure that the small voices are never lost.

The third one is the only one without a voice from me. I watch SBS, I seldom watch ABC, so I have no idea how out of touch their charter is. C’est la vie!

The fourth one is one I believe in. I never watch them, so why do I care? Because community is about just that, communities! There should be space for all, and to guarantee a space for them is just fair dinkum. Is that not the Australian way?

The fifth should be for us all, making it economically interesting for Australian content to be added to their channels. This is about more than just our voice. It will also grow the view of Australian arts. Australian made shows that might even grow our broadcasting interests on an international level.
If this drives us to get us new original drama that could equal shows like New Zealand’s achievement Top of the Lake, which by the way includes our own David Wenham and Thomas M. wright, as well as a respectable groups of high quality playing kiwi’s, then this is not a bad thing.
The fact that ABC pulled out of the funding here is a nice example (for whatever that reason was) and whether it was valid or not.

Now, I will be the first to admit that these issues should be looked at by more than just the mere blogger (like me). And in this regard I have very good company (as does Senator Conroy). We seem to be voicing the Clarion call of Lord Justice Leveson, who said pretty much the same thing and more (he did it in a document sized over 1900 pages). So that is where item’s one and two come from. Three is a local thing, so I will step over that one. Items 4 and 5 seem to be double edged. Not only do they imply to give strength and fair dinkum to the small fish. In addition it will give additional limit to the bigger boys. If they push diversity from within (whether it is for a discounted license fee or not), it will give a diversified voice and one that is not placed on the pedestal of other US/UK sitcoms. So people a lot wiser then me agree with me (OK, in honesty, I agree with them, but my ego requires a little nourishment at times), and the only ones out for the blood of Conroy seem to be those who dislike accountability.

Yet, is there validity from the other side? In all the articles that paint Senator Conroy in a not to favourable light, I actually found one voice that brought a decent point across. It was by Tom Morton at the Australian. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/the-onus-of-the-media-is-to-adopt-decent-standards/story-e6frgd0x-1226297524636)

He has concerns and opposes certain views, but he does address a fear we hold. A journalist SHOULD be held accountable. That is perhaps the biggest fear we have. From what we have seen in the past, most journalists seem to be too shielded with the slogan ‘the people have a right to know’. The fact that most Journo’s seem to get away with murder (figuratively speaking) is why the people would be empowering the acts of Senator Stephen Conroy.

The funny part is that if the press (especially in the UK) had dealt with these issues themselves much stronger, then the current changes might never have had a chance and the British taxpayer could have saved themselves many millions on an extremely chunky sized report.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

March 10, 2013 · 18:04

Humanitarian Law v National security

HRA_MI5
The news has been on and off for a long time involving the Muslim Cleric Abu Qatada. Again yesterday as ‘another’ attempt to evict him has started. There is anger in both politics and the population on a person who is receiving a large amount of support, costs a bundle in legal fees and he is staying in a house paid by the UK government which is priced at half a million pounds. In this time and age of overbearing amounts of unemployed and poverty, those events are having a very negative effect on the population.
Yet, this cannot be about feelings and emotions. We cannot ignore them, but the balance requires us to take a look in the other extreme, namely the logical view.
I will ignore most rumours and classified information involving Qatada from before the arrest of October 2002, when he was taken to Belmarsh Prison. The reason that before that date most of it is all based on he said, she said and Lucy did (Lowdown Understanding of Circulator Younglings) as the Intelligence community is sometimes labelled by those who seem there is no need for the Intelligence community.
Yet, in this specific light is their view invalid?
Britain initially detained Abu Qatada in 2002 under anti-terror laws imposed in the wake of 9/11 but he was released under house arrest, sparking a ten-year battle to send him to Jordan. This would be the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. On 16 December 2004 the Law Lords ruled that Section 23 was an issue, but under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 it remained in force. It has since been replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
The BBC reported in their time line that in October 2002 Abu Qatada was Detained without charge. If we look at the ACSA 2001 act, then we should take a look at both sections 23 and 24.
S23 talks about detaining international terrorists, despite that his removal or departure from the UK is prevented. It is nice that S23(1)(b) mentions (or) a practical consideration. So the practical consideration allows for Abu Qatada to be detained.
S23(1) does refer to part (2), which requires provision paragraph 16 of schedule 2 of the Immigration Act of 1971 (c.77) as well as (and) paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to that same act.
So we need to get to the immigration act. It is already interesting that they did not refer to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was released two years before that.
There it basically states that a person who may be required to submit to examination under paragraph 2 may be detained under the authority of an immigration officer pending a decision to give or refuse him leave to enter.
That paragraph reads literally:
(2) Where the Secretary of State may give directions for a person’s removal in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, he may instead give directions for his removal in accordance with arrangements to be made by the Secretary of State to any country or territory to which he could be removed under sub-paragraph (1).

Which then refers to proceedings, ejections and the Immigration Appeals act 1969.
I reckon the Clash had it down to a legal fine art when they wrote the lyrics ‘Should I stay or should I go!’
The more I read, the more I feel that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was created a little too rash, but I am steering off course.
We get back to three parts.
1. HOW did he get here?
2. WHY was Abu Qatada arrested?
3. Why is this all taking so long?
Going back to 2002, he was held without being charged. This statement seems truthful as an immigration officer can do this; however, the things that follow are an issue. Why did this take until 2005? The Telegraph reported that he was freed in March 2005 on conditional bail. So can anyone explain to me how that takes 3 years? The Clash was spot on! Should he stay, or should he go! Was he a real threat?
1. He got here on a forged passport in 1993 and was given Asylum 9 months later.
The CPS (the UK version of the DPP) had the following information on their website:
Obtaining Leave by Deception – section 24A (1) Immigration Act 1971.
This offence came into force on 14 February 2000.
A person who is not a British Citizen commits this offence if by means which include deception by him:
a) he obtains or seeks to obtain leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or
b) he secures or seeks to secure the avoidance, postponement or revocation of enforcement action against him.
In proving deception, direct evidence from the immigration official who was deceived should ordinarily be obtained. Further information regarding this element can be found in the legal guidance dealing with the dishonesty offences under Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. See guidance on Theft.
In drafting a charge or indictment under this section, it will be necessary to elect whether the allegation is made under section 24A (1) (a) or (b) of the 1971 Act.
There may also be an offence under section 26 (1)(c) of the 1971 Act of making a false statement, return or representation to an immigration official in the commission of any offence under Section 24 of the 1971 Act. The Section 26 offences are explained below. The statutory defence under section 31 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 applies to this offence.
This offence is an either-way offence and the maximum penalty on indictment is either a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or both.
The leading authority for sentencing is R v Nasir Ali [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. This case indicates that even where a guilty plea is entered, a sentence of 9 to 12 months imprisonment should be imposed. In terms of venue, these offences should ordinarily be dealt with in the Crown Court unless there is exceptional mitigation.
Important to know that His forged immigration feat in 1993, does not imply expulsion from the UK (no mention of that other than that he might face up to 2 years of Jail time. It seems he has done a lot more than that. Is this all about posturing?
I think it is a valid question. Yes, the man had ties, Yes, he had outspoken thoughts (thoughts I do NOT condone), but beyond that, has he actually committed a crime that warrants 10 years in Jail?
I am not speaking out for him, or condoning terrorism in ANY way. I am asking, what crimes did he commit? This is linked to part two of the three questions, and part three remains the same. Why is this taking so long? I cannot understand this part. Instead of closing it all down, Qatada is receiving thousands of pounds in Financial aid on many levels. It seems to me that on a political level many posturing acts are made and too many citizens are paying that bill.
In regards to the BBC quote by the PM Mr Cameron: “I am completely fed up with the fact this man is still at large in our country, he has no right to be there, we believe he’s a threat to our country“. As well as the claims as voiced on Sky News UK on March 9th “Theresa May has applied for permission to appeal against a decision to block the deportation of Jordanian terror suspect Abu Qatada”
My questions become, what on earth are they doing?
There are two reasons.
First is that MOST of these messes come with the trade of forged and illegal VISA papers! WHY is the immigration act not amended to include voiding residency if residency was obtained in any illegal way? There could be an exception if it can be proven that the person is seeking asylum from persecution. In addition, there would still a period of time between Residency and Citizenship to make additional checks. All this time wasted, all that money wasted!
The second reason is that the PM states that he has no right to be here. How so? Let us not forget that his entry was approved 6 years before the Americans had their 9/11. It seems that this case taken immensely out of proportions.
Now the other side! Was it taken out of proportions?
There is a government’s duty to react in defence and protection of its citizens. Let us be fair. MI-5 is not there to have fun and just sit around. They have goal and purpose. There seems to be a massive amount of ambiguity going on as well, especially in this case. Several European Judges claimed that Qatada is more than just a money man for Al-Qaeda. Either there is proof, and he is extradited or there is not. There is no legal twilight (as the Independent stated) in my mind. If there is evidence, then MI-5 must give it and stop playing around with security considerations (if they are at all involved at present), If there is no evidence, then cut him loose.

There are three branches wasting massive amount of tax payers costs. All founded in Ego (or so it seems). Why?
If we move towards IHL we can see that the first rule in this is ‘Persons outside of combat and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely‘.
That rule seems to be simple enough.
So if we can agree on the premise that Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant, then the solution seems so simple (I am infamously known to oversimplify issues).
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. It acted against the US and UK, so there is no issue. If there is evidence that Qatada was part of Al-Qaeda, then he is guilty and can be processed. As he was arrested again in more than one issue and involving transgressing the strict bail rules, then the question becomes. Is Qatada presently in violation of the Terrorism Act 2006? If so, process him, if not, let him go. Let us not forget that he can only be held up to 15 years according to Section 13 of that act.
This should follow a huge paragraph on the rules and regulations of extradition, but I will spare myself THAT agony for now. (Reading 4 acts on one day is quite enough).
Personally, from the news and information I wonder if we are not going too far on a binge to ‘assist’ the US in their witch-hunt for their terrorists. I am not arguing AGAINST their hunt for Al-Qaeda, but a lot of this evidence is way too thin, as mentioned by the Appeals Judge Sir John Mitting.
It’s not that there is a magical road to wander. It is process, rules of evidence and such (pesky law rules, according to some).
I wonder how Sir Jonathan Evans sees this all? If there is an abundance of political posturing, then at some point (sooner rather than later), the house of Lords might ask him, and likely will definitely ask the PM and the Home Secretary a few questions on this specific matter as this case spirals further out of control (by kind cooperation of the UK Media).
Getting back to the title
Common Law has grown on Humanitarian grounds and the rights of the individual.
The Common law system is based on previous court decisions. They are considered “law” with the same force of law as statutes. This has been going on for a few centuries. Common law courts have had the authority to make law where no legislative statute exists, and statutes mean what courts interpret them to mean. In this environment the UK, as well as Australia and especially Canada grew a justice system that respected the rights of the individuals and especially as all are innocent until proven guilty. The UK has not been without its issues like the IRA and the Ulster Brigade. It is only because of those events during the 70’s and 80’s that MI-5 grew to the strength that it was able to keep the UK relatively safe against attacks by Al-Qaeda. What most did not realise that 9/11 showed that the issue with terrorists is not just finding them, but prosecuting them, because of a ‘failed’ law system became a lot harder. I use the word ‘failed’ as Common Law had never dealt with situations like that, and neither had the US. The question becomes on how to deal with terrorists in Law. Common Law is to treat all alike. This is where the shoe no longer fits. A few require a different prosecution. This is not common Law; however these few have the desire to end the lives of many. Can the Law be allowed to continue to endanger the lives of many hundreds of its citizens as one is protected against draconian law needs?
Whether Abu Qatada is guilty or innocent, the issues that showed up during his extradition do leave us with a clear path of evidence. Several acts need to be revamped.
The valid question why this was never correctly done will remain on many minds for a long time to come.

2 Comments

Filed under Law

February 22, 2013 · 15:01

They’re consoles, but not as we know them!

Have you been looking forward to the Hype start of the PlayStation 4 yesterday? I was not. I did not waste time waiting for some stream to start with all the other people who were waiting to be the first to know. Millions of viewers and all were watching the same stream at the same time. I was not. Don’t get me wrong. I love games as much, if not more than the average player. But to quote Mr William Shatner in a very appropriate manner: ‘Get a life!’

So, when I looked at some of the details after the first wave, I had an option to sift through the information, and a few very scary thoughts were starting to form. The steps taken are very very appropriate (from the viewpoint by Sony), yet, we are about to get an entirely new wave of revenue driven groups, and before too long, it will cost you!
This might even more then you bargained for and there might be little to no chance to avoid it with all impending consequences. What am I talking about? Let me explain!

First the mundane stuff:

It is mentioned to have eight cores and an enhanced PC GPU. This system will work at speeds approaching 2 Teraflops. There is a lot more, but the issue is set in the next part I mention: “PS4 to include cloud and game live-streaming functionality; focus on social networking; global Gaikai network rollout.” (Source: Gamespot).

Am I just spouting out some facts? Perhaps, however, consider that managing multi core processor systems are a lot harder than most people realise. However, inserting code that accesses non-used, or less used processors is hard, but when active, they can remain undetected for a long time. Now add the thought that such malignant code is added through the DLC that is added to the game and we have a silent data screamer. This is the other less known side of anti-viral solutions. Data viruses are almost impossible to track, unless you track EVERY process, which slows down any system scanned.

Its opponent, the new XBox720 is still a question mark. There are loads of rumours, however, no real facts. It is however very likely that the Social Networking issue will be included. This is going to be the real problem.
This step was unavoidable.
Let’s face it, Facebook changed the world forever! However, if we take into account the shadier side of social networking (aka cyber criminals) then you might begin to realise that your goose could be cooked. We are not talking about an account that gets hacked. No, that would be too simple. For this part, we need to take an additional look back towards last October where insurers were mentioning that mentioning absences on social media might have consequences.
In December 2012 the insurance council of Australia made this quote: “The insurance industry is urging holidaymakers to keep their travel plans off social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter to reduce the risk of burglary over Christmas”. This is actually late in the game as the British Insurance Age wrote this in June of 2012: “Social media-savvy young people could represent an emerging market for on-line risk insurance cover, according to research conducted by the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII)” So, here we can pretty much replace the words ‘emerging market’ for ‘additional costs’.

There has been the odd wild story on how a person tagged in a photo on Facebook through their smart-phone was enough for burglars to know that a house was empty. Now we add Social media to a gaming console? I could go for the kids and computers next, however, the bulk of gamers on systems like that are likely to be adults. Being adults does not mean that they are in ample supply of Common Cyber Sense. Let’s face it; loads of advanced users tend to lack such skills. In addition, we will now have to contend with consoles in need of Anti-Viral Software (to thwart Social media Cybercrime) and a league of other issues.
Let’s mention the issues that Sony had in the past with their hacked databases. Should we wait for the first time loads of credit cards go into some auto-donation mode? (With cybercriminals as the designated benefactor). I am not kidding! Yes, you will hear on the amount of safety Sony has, and the people will be perfectly safe. Spokespeople and Marketing spins will all make the case that we are all perfectly safe. So, let me remind you, or if you did not know inform you that in April 2011 the information of 77 million account holders were stolen from the Sony network. On May 4th of that year Sony confirmed that personal identifiable information was stolen.
Now they want to add their console to social media?
How long until the insurance company wants additional policies? How long until the insurance company decides that ‘it’ is not covered? Who will pay then? Sony? Or will they say “Oops! We so Sorry!” and leave you hanging with the consequences of the event.
I am not having a go at Sony here (even though it sounds like it).
There are several factors that should be seen as hazardous to the gaming health if those new console owners continue in an on-line/cloud gaming experience. First of all, cyber laws are shaky on several levels, especially when foreign criminals are involved (finding them is often a near impossibility). There is evidence on several levels that most of us are not ready for this level of integrated social media. Not because we do not want to, but because our systems can be invaded on many levels at several points. This is the consequence of evolution and people going to the edge of new technologies. At some point it becomes a clear that adding more and more is becoming counter-productive.
Then there is the part of additional revenue. Sony and Microsoft want all these sides to social media, for the simple reason that all that information is worth a massive amount of money. ‘free’ data, all there waiting to get scooped up by the container load. Would we get paid for this? Very likely not! How long until a non-adult gets to click ‘yes’ on an option so he/she gets it for free? Who is then liable when things go wrong? (When they go wrong, not if they go wrong!).
These are all the dangers of social media on the internet. Then finally there is their mention of Cloud gaming. Another new Hype that will be added for gamers. Yet, there are several levels of dangers. This is not just something I am claiming. Several exports on this field from data providers to the technology providers at Cisco make mention of this. They are warning us on levels of dangers when it comes to Cloud issues. So, the cloud, especially with data at rest will need several levels of monitoring and all this takes resources. So, how will we be charged for those? You can bet your house on the dangers that ‘free’ options there will come at a much higher price down the road and not unlike Facebook, should you stop gaming, then what will happen to the data?
The weird part is that most of these issues belong in medium to large sized companies with able IT coverage. Not in the average household where the IT expert is 11 and has a Nintendo 3DS!
Should you consider this and wonder how much time you have. Well, this console is to be released in 2013 and disaster could strike in 10 months, 10 days and 10 hours from now. Questions need to be asked, and those who protect the gamers (read citizens with a console) need to realise now that ALL data can be gotten to by cyber criminals, and in many commonwealth nations the law and the law enforcers are not up to scrap within that timeframe.
My biggest issue?
A device meant for entertainment is thrust into a grey area of legislation for the benefit of massive amounts of revenue. The moment our personal data goes somewhere else, those who enabled this in the first place will likely pass the buck to an area of non-accountability.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law

Tagged as , , , ,