Category Archives: Law

February 13, 2013 · 00:33

Press legislation, or not?

It was not too long ago, that we heard all manner of harsh words and political contemplations on those bad bad bad press folks. All those phone hackers!

And yes, it did not take too long for parties to react and a long investigation started. It resulted in a report by the Honourable Lord Justice Leveson spanning around 2000 pages, making it a bigger work then the Lord of the Rings; yet, I guarantee it, not as entertaining to read. Many seem to agree with me. The issue however, is not the entertainment, but it was a serious look at the visibly failing ethicality of the press and it’s ‘assistants’.

Yet, it seems that the views from that report will be largely ignored. We await the release of a Royal charter for PRESS regulations in the coming week. So, how do we feel about this? The Guardian reported on the possible compromise by Labour. No matter where you stand as Labour, Tory or Independent. It is clear that there is a high issue. The PM mentioned the dangers on infringing free speech. Whether we see this as a compromise towards the press, or the ideological view is OUR view, and the view of the PM. We all fear dangers and threats to free speech and history proved that this fear is rightly so.
The issue more than team Murdoch getting caught with their fingers in the bugging cookie jar. It is about the standard and ethics of the journo’s that is the question. The evidence seems clear and overwhelming that as their papers need revenue to keep value, some were eager for money (read income) and had not too many issues throwing ethics straight into the Thames and have a free for all.

The questions then becomes, is the PM correct and should the charter suffice, OR is his honour correct and the need for legislation becomes paramount. His deputy Nick Clegg has been outspoken on the side of the Leveson report, and as such it is that the top players do not see eye to eye on this matter.

The question is whether it is a clear eye to eye, or that the involved parties (read people of the press) have lost the credibility and trust to continue the way they currently are. The issue we should not forget is that the true core of the press is a lot larger that most of us realise and most of them work hard, they keep ethics high and get published. Some break our hearts, dent our faith and crush our strength with the facts they report. So the report gives us another view. Can we actually ignore it all? Is that not wrong to those who kept the banner of Journalism high? Legislation would ensure THEIR good handling.

The issue that the PM fairly raises is that legislation would be more complicated and create a vehicle for politicians in the future to impose regulation and obligations on the press. I would like to add to that, that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Even if I ignored the fear he voices on limiting freedom of the press down the road there is an actual impasse. We would all feel divided between the two sides. They are both fair sides.

What stopped me from hailing the move towards legislation is what i had been reading lately involving several economic issues. Could legislation be used as a shelter for economic manipulation? How long until these matters get intertwined and there is such lack of legal clarity that a hedge fund gets ‘misquoted’ and the blame is pushed unto the press with all the, messages of ‘oops’ and reference to an honest miscommunication.

This comes from the NY times 9th July 2012 “Bank Scandal Turns Spotlight to Regulators”

That belief, some regulators say, stemmed from a “miscommunication,” rather than instructions from Mr Tucker. The bank also never explicitly told regulators that it was reporting false interest rates that amounted to manipulation, according to regulatory documents.

So, if this was taken as truth, then we see here an example how media regulation would just complicate matter. What if ‘them’ is a financial reporter, or just anyone in the press picking up a nice piece of news? For that matter, if I got a $1 for every mention of miscommunication I heard over the last 20 years, and if that rule only applied to people who were senior manager of higher then I would buy an island like Guernsey (or the Falkland’s with an additional free Frigate).

From those sides, and views I would see that the PM (alas) has a point. On his side is also Adrian Jeakings, president of the UK Newspaper society. He too believes that the industry is capable of policing the press. That part I wish to oppose. You see, they will play nice, they will be quiet and humble and so on, but how long until the 1,000,000 pound fine will be diminished, because it will only hurt more then it will do good? How long until some of them will transgress to the point that they should be criminally charged? At that point a QC will come into the court mentioning ‘honest mistake’, ‘my client is truly sorry and remorseful’ and so on.
This prospect moves me straight back into Camp Leveson (to coin a phrase). There is no doubt. Some of us will go one way, some the other way. No matter how we feel, we are not indifferent.

Perhaps reading the Royal charter when released will help us to clear our heads and accept that charter, or push us into demanding legislation. I do know that we have not seen the end of this any day soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , , , , ,

February 10, 2013 · 01:14

The Italian menace?

The Italian menace?

Just when you thought it was safe to think of any kind of future again, the abyss opens up right in front of you and your savings are again in danger.

The first topic of discussion as presented by the Dutch NOS was of course the European budgets. To a budget of 960 billion, the Dutch contribute 6 billion and they got a one billion dollar discount. Yes, this seems to be the Marks and Spencers approach to budgeting. Now, they seem to be happy, and I am not sure how to feel. It does however give a clear picture that the Dutch, always visible as a high player, are anything but that big. When you are profiles as a larger player and their contribution is less than a tenth of 1 per cent, that it means that they are not that big a player at all (or so it seems).
So, the Dutch politicians are going home with a satisfied feeling until the end of the decade. So how is this impacting? It is what followed that could become the real worry. It is a newscast of the return of Mr Berlusconi. Yes! He is returning to Italian politics with elections less than 3 weeks away. Does he have a chance? Not sure and not really my worry to be honest.

What is interesting is how he pulls people in with his dreams of giving back the real estate taxation of 2012. So, if that is done then Italy would be withdrawing from their promise to get their budget and deficit under control. If that happens, then what is next for Europe?
The bigger issue is that this might be a clear indication that Goldman Sachs is back and actively trying to meet their share in the Game of Greed.
They seem to be a clear controlling and influential party with most European governments. Forbes already reported this as a ‘danger’. They did mention the Monte dei Paschi banking scandal as part of their news cast as well. They also remained soft in their ideas of nations no longer being governable. I am less subtle. From my viewpoint I am willing to contemplate the opinion that the European governments are about to become the bank’s bitches with Goldman Sachs leading them the way to population enslavement. I agree, the thought is a little strong!

You see, there is method to my madness, or my madness is methodical (either way works). So, let us take a look at how I got to that conclusion.

In the Dutch newscast on this, as well as in Forbes and as well as mentioned in other sources “Berlusconi, who said he won’t seek the executive position but rather prefers to become Finance Minister, has seduced the masses saying he will repeal a property tax imposed by Monti, returning about €4 billion ($5.4 billion) to the people by refunding taxpayers’ 2012 payments” so with all the shortages, they add to the non-debt resolving side. We can debate whether it is the right or the wrong thing to do. In my view it is an Italian choice and it is their right to choose. Whether right or wrong, it is however interesting that Berlusconi seeks the Finance Ministers position. With him being a connection to Goldman Sachs as a (former) international advisor? It also means that the Italian deficit will be upped by another 5.4 billion dollars. This implies that Italy is less interested in getting their deficit down.

My issue is that according to the numbers Goldman Sachs is one of the banks retaining their gains these last years. I have nothing against that as I do have a capitalistic side. There is however a realistic side to profit, and many greed driven organisations seem to remain very unrealistic. With the ties he had/has, and the rules of the game so unaltered. I worry about what will happen to the Italian debt during the next government term.

Here is the link between this all. This was discussed by the Independent. “What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe”. In there they made the following statement: “Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions.” (Nov 18th 2011). I could not have said it any better.

Now we get to the juicy part. Should Berlusconi get elected, and then we will suddenly read on how certain realignments of bad banks will be needed? There will be a change, and of course Goldman Sachs will get their share. It is all nice and legal. No matter how they react, whether Europe breaks apart, whether the costs will once again be set into other places. We are looking at an additional total debt increase of half a trillion dollars (across the EEC) and Goldman Sachs will get their share. So why are the European legislations not dealing with this clearly visible weak flaw?

Now, here is where I get to go on thin ice. The conspiracy theorist in me might think that this is what the power players from the US had in mind from the beginning. From their point of view governments are obsolete! Especially when these governments are getting in the way of highly desired profits, commissions and personal wealth goals.

Politicians seem to get pushed into an ego trip (in some cases they are simply with their backs against a wall). They do not cover their budgets and get the back of these strong players to get visibility and media to do the things that should be investigated and questioned on many levels. The Dutch SNS was a clear example. However other banks and acting parties should not be forgotten. The ABN/Amro Bank was one of these banks that required nationalisation. They are linked in all this with connections to the Royal Bank of Scotland (who was having a nice go at acquiring ABN/AMRO). And again here comes Goldman Sachs around the corner, having a nice juicy finger in all of these matters. They were in an investigation regarding Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) traders. They were not guilty, as some people forgot to disclose certain matters. However, the LA Times reported this on October 12th 2010: “Hedge fund operator John Paulson a key player in SEC case against Goldman Sachs. His firm made $15 billion in 2007 by betting that Americans would default on their home loans in droves.” From my point of view, that is not all they betted against.

Why am I so against Goldman Sachs? The issue is not Goldman Sachs; they are not breaking any law. It is the politicians that walk away with golden futures, creating bad banks and leaving the population to work of the debt through taxation, a population left with forever less and less. Soon this can no longer remain affordable and Italy seems likely the next one moving into this direction. This is where banks and large corporations become in charge and we get to work past retirement ages to fill the need of their greed. This is a need that is eternal and will never be satisfied. If you doubt me, then look at the list of nations that was able to keep their budget. It seems that only Belgium made their budget, and that might only have been because they were without a parliament racking up cost for the most of 2011. They even celebrated their new parliament after a record 541 days without a parliament on December 11th 2011. So that would definitely helped in keeping the cost down.

So back to the headline I started with “The Italian menace?”
Is it Silvio Berlusconi the menace? Possibly! If he continues on a path that does not stop the rising debts.
Is Italy the menace? Possibly! If they do not get a handle on their debts. In this case I mean a solution where they pay for their massive overspending from more than the last decade, mostly under Silvio Berlusconi.
Will the Italian menace end the EEC? Likely! If debts keep on rising, and as insurmountable debts are taken as write off’s against retirement funds and national treasuries. It is not impossible that Italy becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Should you consider that this could never happen, then think again. The same was said about the SNS bank and that puppy is now a nationalised one (but it seems that for now it is not house broken).

This has happened again and again. This is not just about the banks. Politicians are also to blame. For that I would like to mention papers like “Investing in Greece: an Olympic opportunity”. It came from Costas Bakouris in 2001. The thoughts were all fair enough. However, how much came to happen? How much money did come in?

Most facts point towards the information that the Olympics cost double from what was budgeted and out of the amount approaching 10 billion a lot less then budgeted came in.
There was the article called “Business and investment prospects strong after Olympic Games triumph” Which was released after the games of 2004. In December 2004, through the newspaper USA Today. It was published in December 2004. The interesting part of the second story is that there was no name attached to it. So what was THAT source?

Even though the Olympics are a unique event, the financial consequences are real and high. Yet, there were no visible budget cuts and massive cuts were required. But wait, here is super hero/villain Goldman Sachs to help with the presentation of it all.

The Olympics were the most visible, but not the only one. This is what Felix Salmon wrote for Reuters on February 9th 2010 (exactly 2 years ago). “It’s a bit depressing that EU member states are behaving in this silly way, refusing to come clean on their real finances. But so long as they’re providing the demand for clever capital-markets operations like these, you can be sure that the investment bankers at Goldman and many other investment banks will be lining up to show them ways of hiding reality from Eurostat in Luxembourg.”

In that time, banks wrote cheques for investment events no one could cover. This is clearly shown in the case of the Dutch SNS. And the fun does not stop here. The article “ABN Amro hiring spree targets Asian private wealth” 29 January, 2013 Written by Elliott Holley shows that they are hiring again, with at least 1 person from Goldman Sachs. It is interesting how this small circle gets to go everywhere.

Goldman Sachs does not seem to have broken any laws. Politicians all over Europe seem to have changed very little, and they seem to all extremely willing to get into bed with Goldman Sachs, their ‘golden’ solution. National politics does not seem to regulate banks to the degree that is needed and some governments do not seem to properly regulate themselves either.

When we look at the 2011 EEC numbers we see the following: the largest government deficits in percentage of GDP were recorded in Ireland (-13.1%), Greece (-9.1%), Spain (-8.5%), the United Kingdom (-8.3%). Whilst the Government debt kept on going up and was set at 10 421 987 million Euro, which boils down to 82.5 (% of GDP). (Source: Eurostat News release 62/2012 – 23 April 2012)
They also show that Even though the GDP was set to become negatively in 2012, it had been forecast slightly positive in 2013. There is no proof of that, and whatever taxation was acquired in 2012, Berlusconi wants to hand that back to the people. Consider these numbers. Now add three facts to this equation.

1. The LIBOR scandal (see previous blog) shows how within the UK the percentages had been tweaked. This means that the percentages were incorrect. Now consider that the LIBOR is based on 4 times the planets GDP (adding up to 300 trillion $ as mentioned in several articles).

2. The GDP is the market value of all the final goods and services produced within in a country in a given time period. We have seen how people are without work. Economies are shrinking and services are lost to families all over the EEC. So how does that number keep on going up?

3. The European Economic Forecast, Economic and Financial Affairs (Spring 2012) document shows a picture again way too optimistic. In several nations it seemed to predict that 2013 was a year when things would be turning up. There is NO sign that this is happening. The belts are tightening in nearly all European nations. In addition, when we consider the SNS Property moving into Bad banks, we see that the current need for business property is diminishing due to lack of revenues. From my point of view it implies that the mentioned government debt at 82.5% of GDP (2011) could be as high as 90% of GDP. If that is true, then the overall percentages will hit all harder as the interest rates for government debts should be higher, and their credit ratings might be lower as a consequence.

Now consider that should the debt grow and their rating goes one level down, then that nation might have to pay a percentage on their debt. With governments owning hundreds of billions, an example means that a debt of $300B, if the interest is only 1% that would come down to an annual payment of 3,000 million, just to keep it stable. That means every person pays between 50 and 300 dollars to pay the interest. EVERY PERSON! Now consider that this is not a real problem for most people, however Consider that in Spain 24% has no job, that means that this amount will be paid by 75% of the population with income, so they pay more now. Then consider that the debt needs to go away.

We cannot trust banks as LIBOR shows. The EEC papers show them to think of them in a better state then they are, and the presented numbers are debatable. And as shown from several sources Goldman Sachs is connected to nearly every stage, somehow in some non-criminal way.

So two years later (after the claim by Felix Salmon), where are we now and what bad news is yet to come?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

February 7, 2013 · 15:11

Banks, eunuchs of a new congregation

The times are still all over the place. As I finished the 5th part of my previous story, the stories from SkyTV UK and the news by the Dutch NOS started to hit my TV. The thoughts I had on issues that are currently playing out are nowhere near done. I get the distinct feeling that this is far from over. It is almost that there is a voice whispering in the ear of Dutch Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem. The whispers seem to be about the Bad Bank and the whispers could involve Goldman Sachs. There is no doubt that this man knows his stuff. He got his finance papers in Wageningen, a renowned and highly respected Dutch University. There is however more at play. I know it is a personal feeling and I am not an economy graduate, so there are plenty who can run circles around me in this regard.
The first part is that this idea comes from Goldman Sachs. Is it wrong to call a spade a spade as the expression goes? This firm together with the Lehman Brothers were the massive cause of something that had us reeling in 2008, and this is not over, not by a long shot. THAT damage will take decades to overcome. No amount of fancy bookkeeping can brush this under any size of carpet. This is however not about emotions. That path will never ever give any solution. My issues remain clinical (or at least I am trying to keep them that way).
Consider the banks are all allowed to get all their failings into a small rejectable corporation. These costs should be paid by the failed implementers. Not the government, not the taxpayer. The bank must pay for their blunders!
If this continues as it currently seems to be going, then we get a legal situation where high risk bad ideas can just be written off the books and straight onto the taxpayers list of to pay, whilst those responsible will ever show improvement. Those people will just keep on playing high risk games. That had been shown already. This thought was also mentioned by Rolfe Winkler at the New York Daily News. How is it even possible that a company that seems to have been one of the major reasons for the financial meltdown be regarded, or even ALLOWED to make any continued presence?
Wherever I looked Spain, Netherlands, Ireland, and perhaps even more places. Goldman Sachs keeps on being named as a primary advisor. How many bad banks are there in America?
Let’s take a clinical jump into health care. Would the Dutch Minister of healthcare Mrs Edith Schippers consider someone for a position? You see, I know a person (well, kind of). Brilliant physician (so they say), over a decade of medical research experience and deep knowledge of improving the physical best in all of us. His name is Dr. Mengele. Would she please consider him as the new Surgeon General?
Are people feeling ‘slightly’ sick at this particular moment? So if a transgressor of THAT magnitude is so offensive, can ministers not understand that we have a massive amount of resistance against parties like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers? Some things should just not be considered. This is not emotion, this is common sense. If groups like that can debunk a generation, why trust them again?
Again I say, this is not emotion, this is common sense. My reasoning is simple. When a board member moves into such a power position, that person will surround himself/herself with the golden boys and girl that made for this to happen. It is an evolutionary step. The board member rewarded is also the golden boy/girl reward. The top of the pyramid moved to the direct vicinity of that power circle. And they would have moved a few people into their vicinity too. So whatever was done to that board of directors did not stop when they left. We are looking at a minimum of two additional circles of power, some moved up, some moved away and some stayed. But the way of thinking of those who left remained in place. That is the real danger. This could happen again!

My fears are voiced in much better way by Professor Julia Black from the London School of economics in a paper from January 2011 “The financial crisis revealed weaknesses in regulation which went far deeper than organisational structure. The new legislation alone cannot provide the solutions – but it will be an important tool for guiding the future conduct of regulators, as well as determining the name of the institution for which they will work” (Black, J, ‘Breaking up is hard to do’, 2011).
So these weaknesses go deeper than just the casual parts. This is partially visible in an article in the Guardian written by Alan Travis on October 2nd 2012 (“Labour will introduce new laws against dishonest bankers, Cooper to say”). It is interesting that this happens more than a year after the paper by Professor Black and more than 3 years after the Banking Act 2009 (I reckon they could not delay it any longer). In the article Cooper says: “Cooper says that the public looked at what had happened and had seen no real sign of people being held to account.” This was Yvette Cooper MP, the current UK Shadow Home Secretary.

Really?

Many had that feeling since 2008 when retirement funds when to the local latrine and haven’t been heard of since. For me there are a few additional issues.

1. Can this happen in Australia? (Some might say No, we are not like that, but how clearly is this set in legislation?) We should find and test this BEFORE the Australian public is presented with a multi-billion dollar write off.
2. The UK has the Fraud Act 2006 (originally part of the Theft Act). The problem here is that the word ‘Dishonest’ is a factor in each of the variations of Fraud. That has the issue that the events that lead the 2008 meltdown were not illegal. When we look at the Banking Act 2009, the criminal links are not really there. More important, since its release there have been no additions, alterations or amendments to stop the bad credit ‘solutions’ the US banks employed. So it seems to me that proper protection is still not in place. This means that the impression remains with me that the financial top can continue to get their monthly shares of luxury items, real estate and yachts. It seems that this area is not filled with loopholes; it remains nothing less than an open gate. Beyond that is the statement of Martin Wheatley in regards to LIBOR and that this had been happening since 1991 is an indication of the remaining dangers. So how safe am I in Australia from our banks playing this game?
3. Which solutions and papers can we trust? Many of them are all about concepts, approaches and possible ideas. And nearly all of them are pleading against regulators, regulations and stricter control. It seems to me that those papers are all from financial experts who want a solution without hindering their need for freedom of movement. This is in the heart of my fears.

There are leagues of papers that proclaim ideas. An example is “CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND BANK RESOLUTION QUO VADIS, EUROPE?” written by Dr Barbara Jeanne Attinger. In the conclusions section of page 47 she writes: “National special resolution regimes are capable of addressing the characteristics of credit institutions at national level. The UK regime is exemplary in this respect, as it provides an effective toolbox for bank resolution”.
We might ask her about the LIBOR issues; that in itself does not invalidate her thoughts and approach to the Banking dilemma at heart. Stronger than that, her presentation on 29th January 2013 in Copenhagen reads direct, to the point, clear and pretty brilliant. I do not need to need a finance degree to read between the lines that this is a possible approach to a solution. The part I am missing starts to be visible when get to the resolution in the context of a banking union. She mentions this and focusses on the third pillar.

• Single supervisory mechanism
• Integrated resolution framework
• Common system for deposit protection

The first pillar is about the supervisory mechanism. From my point of view I see the specific need for a fourth pillar, which would require alignment over several nations (not all have the same acts, rules and legislations when it comes to banks).
My thoughts would go towards:

• Single supervisory mechanism
• Integrated resolution framework
• Common system for deposit protection
• Acts of Accountability for Banks and Financial Institutions

I have seen several papers that rely on a solution without regulations. There is no way to tell who’s right here (my lack of Financial degrees gives them the advantage), yet the fact has been shown that Banks cannot be trusted, and the LIMOS scandal just adds a bucket load to that belief.
The acts need to go further than the Fraud Act and the Banking act combined. It must clearly outlaw certain acts. It must also limit rewards. The utter need for a ruling that bad bank approaches are no longer rewarded. More important, any form of reward within financial institutions should be lessened by the amount moved to a bad bank, or bad investment write-off. Something they will not want, however, consider the fact that people end up with margin profits with swapping papers. That should no longer be rewarded.
The high risk use of Interest-Rate Hedging Products (IRHP) are reported to dent their net earnings prospects in the short- to medium-term. (Quote from the Guardian) Well, if it is impeding net profits, then it should not be rewarded in any way shape or form. You want to run risks, fine, but then the bank does it risking their own capital and own finances. What are the chances the banks agree to such measures?
There is an additional issue. This is the current instalments of Goldman Sachs creativity called Bad Banks. This is nothing to attack them on, as they do not seem to be doing anything wrong or illegal. However, I feel that this escape hatch will cause a lot more damage in the short and medium term than anything else. Even long term these Bad Banks are to be seen as issues. The required change would be that until resolved, no less than 5% of annual banking revenues MUST be transferred to the bad banks from the banks that had to be created because of their actions. In additions, the commission-able revenue must be based on the remaining profits AFTER funds are transferred into the Bad Bank. The need for this is shown as the Netherlands are already reporting the need for more and more financial assistance as Bad Bank properties are placed in financial duress. So SNS can just wave it off and sail to the future? It reads like the good old British days of Wine and Jousting: “Peasant Population Taxation! For a long lasting rule of Fun and Frolic”
The next issue goes beyond this. The Bad Bank might be taken care of in some way. Perhaps McKinsey & Company picks it up. Perhaps Moret & Young takes a creative accounting dip in that pool. The LIBOR scandal is however more than just an issue at hand, it will be a debilitating complication, allowing several parties to start muddy the water, leaving a solution hanging until sometime down the track, and at present no protection seems to be in place, and none to look forward to in the short term.

I reckon the current scandals show that this is not even the end of the beginning!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 6, 2013 · 17:56

It hurts every time, but we love it

So, in this fifth part, we will have a little look at the UK banks that were hit lately. This is a progression from previous parts. Not because they were linked (they might be, but I gave no deeper look at that). The important reason is that the banks are doing more than setting a trend. This is all a continuation when banks became more then service providing organisation. They became profit driven. Instead of the normal profit of continuation it became driven to the optional profit of speculation. Even though most banks would argue that this is the way to go, the Netherlands showed how their banks lost to the amount of 40 billion Euros. This pretty much covers more their current deficit. There is also the continuation of thought on the decision makers. How can we be allowed to sit down and see how a group of less than 100 took decisions that would cripple a nation on narrated limitations like ‘miscommunications’, ‘blunders’ and sheer incompetence? More astounding is that following the acts, some decided to look at advices from corporations losing utter fortunes (Source: Telegraaf, 31st October 2012).

This is not just about the fact that we are dependent on a very small group of people. We are confronted that they are just people, with needs and dark desires. A group having ‘ideal’ dreams and writing checks a lot larger than their ego could ever cover.

So what to do?

Let’s take a look at three groups.
The Bank of Scotland, The Lloyds banking group (of which the Bank of Scotland is now a part) and Barclays.

In 2012 the LIBOR scandal got a hold of many (London InterBank Offered Rate), There were accusations and proof was given. As LIBOR affects the US market and it was seen as a violation of American law. The UK version of the Telegraph reported that the chancellor had made it clear that any financial penalty imposed by American regulators must be paid for by bankers, and not the taxpayer. (Source: The Telegraph).

From my side the first thought was that it might be nice if the US cleans up its own side first. I wonder how much money they reclaimed from upper management at Lehman Brothers? Interesting is the information, that those upper level ‘demons’ (aka members of the board of directors) got overall half a billion dollars in bonuses. How much was reclaimed? An example of this is Erin Callan (former CFO Lehman Brothers) who did get a nice payout and if I can believe the NY Times a new husband and moved to a high position with Credit Suisse. Now the next is really important. SHE BROKE NO LAWS! (As far as we know). Also, there does not seem to be any evidence of any kind that she lied. She has been portrayed as a ‘girl’ who was in over her head. That is hard for me to comment on, but it does raise certain questions. There seems to be a board of directors who seem to play the multi-billion dollar game like it is a round of Parcheesi. To debunk a trillion dollar company and then walk away with half a billion should result in more than just global questions. That part is important as at the end there were dealings with Barclays who had a small non illegal windfall. Now business is business, yet it does show that a certain game that was played in the US seems to be played in the UK to the extent that is now the LIBOR scandal.

 

How does this link to the Netherlands and the UK?

Well, look at the reports on how percentage bases are calculated and how it reflects not on ACTUAL debt, but based on how these debts relate to Gross National Product and how these things influence the DOW. So it is in the interest for all to keep certain numbers high. Especially for the greed driven! This is the real problem from my train of thought. Considering what I wrote over the last weeks means that the Greedy need the DOW index to move higher and higher. Yet, all the numbers give me an indication, especially when we see a global depression that those numbers should not go up the way they do. It feels to me that other factors are influencing it all. The US with the fiscal cliff (Fiscal Abyss seems more accurate). Many EEC nations are in massive debt, and then hit with waves of unemployment, higher costs, declining standard of living and no direct prospect that this will improve. People are not spending the way they did. The housing market is breaking down in several nations and so on.

So consider the next nightmare. If the DOW index drops 4,000 points to 10,000. What then? Too many people seem to ignore parts, others want to control parts and those in charge want to rule, so when it does collapse, they maintain whilst none survive.

This same view seems to be happening now in the UK. The controlling of percentages to LIBOR is only a first. A lot of these reports like the one the BBC showed in August 2012 mentioned that this system must change. This was spoken by Martin Wheatley of the Financial Services Authority. He also mentioned discrepancies going back to 1991. This means that some level of manipulation has been going on for over 20 years. So is this about ACTUAL justice, or is it that the US had become SO desperate for as strong as a hand as possible that they pulled a Benedict Arnold against their own banking ‘buddies’. For the UK readers, Benedict Arnold is the American version of Edward Devenney.

Another party in LIBOR is Barclays. They dealt in services that rely on LIBOR, by intentional misrepresenting information they got better deals and therefor more profits. The problem is that using Derivatives in this way and the involved banks’ lending money to each other it becomes a musical chair exercise in passing pieces of paper from one bank to the other. From my viewpoint it could be seen as adding funny money to the internal till and amassing profits from something that was not there. And as they moved hand to hand, they kept the margin of profit that LIBOR offers.

So the following step is reforming this. The UK government seems to be happy to accept all upgrades that Martin Wheatley suggested. However, Reuters reported on the 28th of September 2012 that these changes would add volatility to the short term markets. They also reported that the FSA (the place Martin Wheatley is from) mentions that this standard is too entrenched to replace. It seems that banks on a global scale are too afraid to rock any boat. Is it a fear that their united spread sheets are altered to remove their layer of manipulating? If that is so then their powers would soon be diminished. It seems clear to me that markets are manipulated on several levels and those in charge are in no mood to change any of it. That situation becomes a lot more volatile when you consider the US debt of 17 trillion dollars in addition to the Fiscal Abyss. Those two, when a change is set might mean that the US could be bankrupted overnight.

 

Any claim that this will never happen is slightly moot. Here we now get back to the Netherlands where the same was claimed of the SNS Bank. It is now nationalised. Many nations should now be contemplating massive change to remove the power of banks as we can no longer afford THEIR life style.

It is interesting that the UK is under such scrutiny by the US, yet the US is nowhere near on cleaning its own banks (in my humble opinion). This does not mean that nothing should be done. And it does not mean that they should not have done anything. There is however the question on how those could be improved (as I have asked myself and on my blog in several situations).

So we get to the Lloyds banking group. In January 2013, 8 people were charged connected to a $55,000,000 corruption scandal. (Source: AP). This is not the only issue. Ian Fraser, an award winning Journalist, who reported amongst others for the BBC and Thomson Reuters has a lot more on his blog http://www.ianfraser.org. If anyone wants to question his education? Well the man was ‘shaped’ by St. Andrews (the University, not the Saint), which means he should be regarded as a member of the highest echelon in his profession. In addition, when we look at the board of directors of the banks we mentioned earlier, then we see more than just casual links. Some of them had positions at Citigroup, the FSA, The Royal Bank of Scotland, the US Treasury, JP Morgan Chase, International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and more. This seems to remain a very small inner circle in-crowd.

It is clear that a lot more has happened and even more is happening. This is not even the complete story, but we have clear evidence spanning 2 continents that several nations have a collection of banks where it is all about the profit. Looking at the ‘blunders’ where they were willing to bet the house on all of it. So I feel that clear, visible and vocal oversight of these parties is a given essential need!

Please consider this last part. The UK banks involved in regard to the corruption case and the LIBOR scandal consists of 4 of the 5 large UK banks. It sounds harsh however this implies 80% of the UK banks have prosecutable issues. This is more than a scary statistic. I would take a guess that these 4 banks are controlled by boards of directors and they would add up to less than 75 persons. What happens when they in the same fashion as the Dutch SNS agree that ‘blunders’ were made? Could the UK survive a hit that large? More important will be the question whether the results also impact their siblings Canada and Australia?

Several questions and I expect that no clear answers will be forthcoming (any day soon). A political step could be in the form of carefully phrased denials and years of closed door meetings.

For me the conclusion from what I have seen over the last few weeks is that oversight is a must, there should be a clear list of definitions that the financial world must openly agree on and that there must be an open list of those involved in those standards.

As I close this final part of my reflections, the hope is that you enjoyed these five blogs.

These series were my thoughts on the Financial Banking Blunders as set in:

  • Greed and the lack of common sense.
  • Time for another collapse.
  • The future of greed.
  • A solution by annexing greed?
  • It hurts every time, but we love it.

I will try to take an evolving look at banking laws in a future blog.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

January 30, 2013 · 18:54

Time for another collapse

We have all seen the state of matters on many nations. Including Australia loads of nations are in a massive downturn. America keeps on spending money they do not have. Spain is fighting a massive wall of unemployed (over 24%). Greece is fighting just about everything from no longer payable debts and unemployment figures to phantoms of their past. In addition to this France, Italy and Ireland have issues with both debts and people somewhat not working. Last but not least, the Dutch economy is at a low and they are about to change the current Monarch. Add to this the referendum that is at the heart of the UK, will they remain in the EEC. All these are questions that hold matters that stop an upturn of their economy. These are bleak times indeed.

So can anyone explain to me that the Dow keeps rising? (Seriously, I am not an economist!)

Apart from a dip around January 8th there is no real upturn in the US. They have their issues around budgets, around 7.8% in America does not have a job, their export is not what it needs to be and it seems that their numbers are not what they appear to be. Citing a newscast where the following was stated “The US unemployment rate falls to 7.7% thanks to the reduction in the labour force.” So from that we could consider that yes, there are less unemployed, those people did not get a job, they became pensioners. What other misrepresentations are they making? Now, let’s be honest. They are not doing anything wrong, not just because it is done by all, but because they are clinically speaking the truth. Yet, considering these truths, the question remains. Why is the Dow Index going up and up and up?

Are we about to get hit with a 3000 point drop, and if so, who’s wealth will fall away, the banks and bankers or the retirement funds? It feels like America has adopted a Japanese way. The way of the ‘Yes’ people! Hai!

Americans shy away from bad news. They go play Possum, they ignore, they reject. There is no fight for improvement, there is no middle ground. It is only Victory or Apathy, and victory is a term used often and mostly never deserved. Lately we see messages like this: “Just one hour before midnight on New Year’s Day, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a one-year renewal of federally-funded Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC)”. Decisions of the 11th hour! Even issues on the fiscal gap are deadlocked. Moving forward is not just hard to do, it seems impossible to some to make the hard calls. If they like victory stories that much, they should take a look at Germany. Just so that readers are up to speed, let’s take a little walk on the historical side.

June 7th 2010 “The German government on Monday announced plans to reduce spending by €80 billion ($95.7 billion) by 2014 in the largest package of cuts since World War II” (Source: Die Spiegel)

There was a lot of commotion. Several nations called it overreaction, some called it nonsense. In an IEX article on Macro economy they all mentioned how Germany is such a worry. They even quoted George Soros as a source of it as he spoke at a University in Berlin. How irresponsible these cut backs were. Yet, now Germany has a strong economy, much stronger than anyone else in Europe. I wonder if they saw through the Megalomania of George Soros. It had been advocated by people like Glenn Beck for a while. It seems to me that on a planet of debt, those who own money, those who are in the favour of banks would be in charge of the planet. It is one way of making governments flaccid to your actions; they desperately need what you could spend in their country.

Yet, I am digressing from the issue, which remains the Dow index. Germany remains the only one who fought back these debts with success. It stands to reason that the Dow should not be this strong. Consider that the Dow is fully called “The Dow Jones Industrial Average”. Now consider the unemployment levels which is up and the spending ability which is down. Both elements are off on a global scale.

So how come that this index keeps on rising? What artificial flavours are added?

Now consider that the debt of most nations is based upon Gross National Product (GNP), now consider this falls, which means that the debt quickly rises as per example below.

GNP = $1B, debt is set at 3%, which means that the actual debt is $30M.

Now consider that next year, the GNP is only $700M, which means with a debt of $30M the debt is now 4.28%. This is far more than their agreed and allowed margins of debt. Is this why the Dow is rising? To keep debt percentages low? Also consider that most debts are not millions, but often billions, and in one case many trillions.

You might wonder. Does this matter? Yes, it does for two reasons.

1. The same applied to people with debts in the US. And then in 2004-2008 one in six in the US lost their houses as their spread sheets stated an overly large debt. Why should this not apply to governments? Why are they not accountable for their actions (or better inactions).

2. We seem to be getting that ‘we are still OK’ message, while the impression seems to be that some people are cooking the books (or slightly more precise, they seem to be cooking the percentages).

So the question becomes when it happens (not if it happens) that Dow number slices down to 10,000 or less, who is kept holding the bag?

5 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 27, 2013 · 23:12

Is Ignorance now a valid defence strategy?

I must admit, that the case link that passed me on twitter had my in all states of confusion and amazement. The issue is that an 18 year old Muslim boy had ‘consensual’ sexual intercourse with a 13 year old girl. (Something we tend to refer to as paedophilia). Judge Michael Stokes decided to give the boy a 2 year suspended sentence.

The article was on the UK Daily mail, and I decided to take another look, yet, not much luck. Most other papers haven’t touched it yet, or will not touch it at all. Even Sky News UK seems to remain silent on the matter.

Let’s take a first look with legal eyes.
This was not a situation involving consent!

The Crimes Act 1900 (Australia) States in Section 61HA (4)

A person does not consent to sexual intercourse:

(a) If the person does not have the capacity to consent to the sexual intercourse, including because of age or cognitive incapacity, or

So, because of age, we have negation of consent.
This could now falls under Section 61I, Sexual assault

Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and who knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

However, the ‘AND’ is massively needed, this did not seem to be the case here.  So, there was NO sexual assault.
But, this situation is captured in Section 66C Sexual intercourse—child between 10 and 16

(1) Child between 10 and 14
Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years is liable to imprisonment for 16 years.

So, he would get an additional 2 years in wonderful penitentiary Hilton. This would be an open shut case if we read the Crimes Act, however, in CTM v R [2008] HCA 25 where a suspended term of 18 months was delivered. There the facts were not the same. However, in this case the accused was under the honest believe and on reasonable grounds that the victim was over 16. (And not the age of 15 as she turned out to be). This scenario does not play the same way in the UK (Where they call this part the Sexual Offences act 2003).

There in Section 9 it states:

(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

This is different. Yet, it should not matter as the accused knew the age, but did not know that the act was illegal. If we go by Section 9 (2) he would again be entitled to a government paid stay at Hilton Penitentiary for no longer than 14 years.

So is ignorance bliss?

This is only part one of the entire play. The second part is all about the following sentence : ”Earlier the court heard how Rashid had ‘little experience of women’ due to his education at an Islamic school in the UK, which cannot be named for legal reasons.”

If we look at The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) which makes it illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex or marital status, and applies equally to women and men. Then we get two issues. One, the accused was guilty of discrimination (we will for now ignore the fact that he was genuinely not aware of this). The actual issue is that these values are allegedly propagated by this Islamic School. This is only one side, and we should await the official response of the school. However, the verdict has already been passed in the case of Mr Rashid.

So, is there another issue to prosecute? If the school was indeed guilty of this, then even though the accused should be convicted with more than a suspended sentence, it does give weight to this verdict where he only got a suspended sentence, and the school themselves should ALSO be held accountable for the transgressed events and as such another look should be taken in regards to Muslim school in the UK (actually, pretty much everywhere in the commonwealth). This is not me speaking against Muslim religion. We should all be aware that Christianity has had its own demons when it came to assigning equal values to women. There is however an issue with the fact that we embrace (or seem to embrace) equality. It seems from the information that the Muslim School does not seem to do that, and as such, it should be considered that these schools would have no business in any non-Muslim nation.

The end result is that a Muslim abuser who ‘didn’t know’ that sex with a girl of 13 was illegal is spared jail.

His honour ruled that putting this man into jail would do more bad then good. It is a hard call, especially as many want to side against a Muslim. Yet, he seems to have acted within his Muslim morals. I find it hard to convict him. I have fewer issues with a hard lash at this Muslim school, for the simple reason that this is managed by adults. THEY know (or should know) the law in the UK, especially in regards to matters of discrimination. To voice against the value of women should not be allowed anywhere within in the Commonwealth.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , , ,

January 12, 2013 · 09:32

Greed and the lack of common sense

We have seen the adverse effect of greed for some time now. Going back to 2004, we saw the moves that financial institutions made, and during those days, and in the aftermath of 2008, we saw how a chosen few walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars, whilst at the same time, leaving flocks of people beyond destitute.

The fact that this is still happening in 2013, gives way to a collection of requirements that seems to be non-considered by too many people who should be in charge of protecting the population. Why do governments remain in a state of enabling this level of unacceptable transgressions?

Let’s take a look at the events that are making my blood pressure dangerously rise (again).

On the 10th January a non-formal claim was made by Dutch businessman, Ronald Ras, related to the “Mosa Trajectum” golf resort near Murcia in southeast Spain. The claim is OVER half a billion dollar. Should this pass through then this bank will require serious levels and financial amounts of support. The bank claims that Mr. Ras owes the bank in excess of 165 million dollars. So this could be all ignored as a simple situation (he states versus they state, you know the legal drill).

The issue that makes this event escalating is that this bank received a billion dollars of aid in 2008 during the height of the financial crisis. This bank is also due to announce its restructuring plan which would scrap a massive amount of jobs (a mention of 750 scrapped jobs was mentioned by UK Reuters). In addition to this, the Dutch bank and insurance group SNS Reaal is considering a so-called “bad bank” option so they can push their bad ‘property idea’s’ into a different bank and bookkeep it out of existence. Shouldn’t people go to jail for ideas like that?

Actually, that is not what this is about, but the background is relevant to all of this.

What is interesting and what is the issue, are the amounts just this one bank requires. If we add only these two issues together, then we get to 1.5 billion dollars (2 out of how many issues?). Compared to the population of the Netherlands, the required assistance comes down to $1000 per citizen. So this one bank needs more funding than the entire population can afford. This is the 4th bank in size and their needs have become a fair size of the national debt. How can this even be allowed? Take into consideration that almost a third of the nation makes less than 20,000 euro’s a year, so their share of $1000, will be more than 20% of the taxes they pay. If you look at those parts, then it is clear that the Netherlands is growing deeper and deeper into a hole that no budget can close.

On the other side you should consider the luxury property issue that someone is trying to get done in another nation. It took me almost a year to get one mortgage deal for $50000 within that country, and then it was only possible with almost impossible conditions and guarantees. This ‘person’ gets hundreds of millions and no one installed a proper legal engine to make sure the bank does not get hurt by some of their decision makers?

How does allowing this even compute? In all fairness, the bank did make the statement that this claim has no foundation. Still, how does it get this far? Perhaps we should take another look at the bank too?

So let’s take a clearer look at the issues one part at a time.

1. Someone has an idea for a real estate project worth gold course and as such he gets the financing arranged.
So this first point means that the bank has drawn up agreements, contracts and set up clear lines of credit, as well as the rights and duties of the person who they are lending the money to.

So if this first point is clear, then there is a clear path, and all what happened today on the news is just hot air, with no foundation (the Bank stated January 10th that there is no foundation for the claim).

2. The people behind all this are setting up a good quality sales team (or they should be), all with clear targets. I need to mention here that these targets should be achievable. Under these conditions there is no excuse for sudden financial breakdowns. As we all know, these breakdowns did not affect many in the financial institutions as they walked away with a golden handshake worth mega millions.

Now here is the first issue. I did some digging into their visibility.

–          Their web presence is extremely low, and if there is any that is valid, it is not that visible. THEIR FIRST BIG MISTAKE! I was going over 3 sites, they all showed a lack of professionalism, it is limited in languages (Spanish and English only) and the places they offer are between 1.2 and 1.5 million euro’s. It is interesting that the group who could afford anything like this is less than 0.01% of the Dutch population. So this is an exclusive project that over 99% cannot afford. Now, even if you consider this in European terms. This is a place only less than a handful can afford, and those people rarely all want to live together.

–          If we consider this as a pure resort for vacations, renting/leasing a time shared, or just on a hotel based foundation, then this plan calls in even more questions, as there was little or no infrastructure. This reminds me of the tourist approaches we saw during the 90’s. There were loads of what they would call a time share option, most of them went sour and plenty of people got left holding a bag without value.

So if these two points did not call in questions, then look at the next:

I looked at:

–          http://mosatrajectum.com/venta/
–          http://www.mosatrajectumproperty.com/

These places are all about that project, and I personally find them not that professional (considering the price of the houses), not well conceived, error prone when it comes to the languages and lacking in other ways too. If a faltering sales system is the cause of a failed project then these two links could be regarded as strong indicators that this all failed for many more reasons, not just the economy.

Several of them should be considered as failings of project managers. 1.3 million Euro houses are not realistic. Even before the economic crash it would be unrealistic for many people. It becomes even less interesting when this is all build in a place where there is nothing. I personally see this as the idea of someone seeing their pupils change to euro signs and greed took over (really quickly). Even after the failings of the world economy, this project could have survived if this would have been properly aligned to any kind of realistic market. Yet, even though over the last 2 years the group of Spanish unemployed was OVER 20%, overall spending was down a lot more (not just in Spain), nothing seems to have been done, and now there is a claim? This I deduce from these sites, and searching through several other sites, not making decent mention of this real estate location.

From the data I have now, I would side with the bank, but questions should be asked on all levels. Especially considering America had their Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae issues in 2008, and this plan seems a lot less stable then the huhu idea’s Mac and Mae were having.

So how did the bank fail?

Not sure if call it a fail, but if we look at several of their projects, some that are unaffordable, questions on how these projects are such losses. It is even more important to look at how the numbers are accepted into starting some of these projects to begin with. If some of these places are more decently priced (even considering a minor loss) then it could have drawn prospective buyers and even at a loss, a nation of taxpayers would not be called to pay the bill of over greedy individuals not setting a realistic goal. Consider the Spanish resort example. As the information of the village, even when English is selected most of its information comes in Spanish, I would think the bank, or better its account holder should have kept a better eye on this. This is 100 million plus at the start, so keeping an eye on your investment is always a good idea. If we consider a current projected cost amount of 250,000,000, and divide this by 3100 houses/apartments currently projected, then each house would be less than 100.000. If we consider the costs involved then this solution is a whole new idea.

Should the developers complain? Of course not! They failed, pure and simple. The bank moves in, confiscates the lot and sells as needed. Is that what the developer wants? No! He wants his profit, his ego. It seems to me that for such a reward he should have succeeded. This is not the only project that bares scrutiny. If we consider some of the other building scandals that the Netherlands have faced, then I wonder why these levels of over pricings and overinflated values are not better investigated.

We are looking at a new approach of banks to write of overpricing and bad ideas. Why push this to the taxpayers? These groups are getting too much protection all over the place. The Netherlands are just one example. The US example of Freddie Mac and Fannie May are even more unacceptable.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , ,

January 7, 2013 · 19:02

Be the change you want to see in the world

Well, here is my second attempt to today’s blog. The first one went almost into burn down mode, so it is not getting published, but it does have elements that might make it later.

Why mention this?

It seems that there are several areas where we could look for a probable initial solution to diminish the danger to women in India. Yes, a straight law and a ‘functioning’ police system there would work, but the overwhelming feeling I had was the oddity of it all. India is not a little village in the middle of nowhere. That place has a few more people than most. Almost 20% of the entire population of the planet lives there, so what to do?

So, now I mention the next fact that bothered me. NO ONE helped! Everyone was standing by all in a state of apathy. This got my goat! I’ll happily spend 20 years in prison for decapitating some rapist in the street, and I know I am not the only one feeling that way (I am likely the only psycho who would actually do it though). SO, if we consider the aggravation a population has when so many people live close together, then the inaction makes even less sense to me. I personally do not belief it would be a religious thing, because we were all children, and most of us become parents, so that primal rage to protect innocence is in all of us.

Good Samaritan laws are there to do something in aid of others. I personally belief that it is for the simple reason that the police cannot be everywhere all the time and the following duty to rescue that follows from it could drive down violence statistics and it also means that people will come to the aid of these innocent women. Isn’t it interesting that hundreds get raped, yet Richard Gere got a warrant instantly for a kiss? How interesting this looks against the rape victims who have to wait for week to get any kind of acknowledgement (especially by the police).
So let’s talk about the Good Samaritan Act.

The US does have Good Samaritan acts; however this does not seem to be the same for all states. In many states this umbrella will only protect professional assistance. Nurses, rescue workers are in those cases protected against liability (as it should), however, a bystander rendering assistance, could in theory get sued in several states, and under certain conditions. Volunteers are often protected (unless gross negligence can be proven).

The Good Samaritan act exists in almost identical forms in many Common Law countries. It is important to note that this is only their as a defence in criminal and Tort law cases. It is not a duty to rescue, a duty that professional workers are bound to (fire fighters, emergency medical staff and so on). We could see the Good Samaritan Act (GSA after this) as a moral compass for those who do not act. Do you really want to be bystander telling a judge in court that you wanted to help, but alas. That darn broken nail prevented you from applying pressure to a fatal wound bleeding out (of course some faint at the sight of blood, and that in not something they can control).

There are however places where the Duty to rescue applies to its citizens. In Germany and Canada (yes go figure), these two have a law in place that OBLIGES a person to give aid where needed, and as long as their assistance was given in good faith, this law also protects them from prosecution. It is a much stronger version then the GSA, I personally am on the fence whether we should go for GSA or Duty to Rescue. However, the Canadian version was short to the point and in simple English written, so it seems to be a simple ‘rule’ to follow. I personally think that it is not a bad thing to render aid when needed. Personally I must notice that Canadians tend to be much too nice and will give aid and render assistance at the drop of a hat (any hat). This makes life north of the US extremely liveable and friendly flavoured.

The Daily News and Analyses from Mumbai reported on the 6th of January “Coming to someone’s rescue — an accident victim or a woman violated — is fraught with risks. The good Samaritan will be summoned to the police station several times, sometimes at odd hours, forced to become an eye-witness, and seldom offered any protection, even if he/she is ready to testify in court against a dreaded criminal who probably has the means to hurt the witness.”

From these words it seems that there is no proper GSA active in India. This changes everything, and the fact that many newscasts seem to have ignored that little fact seems to bias us in the wrong way about India. When the need is there we would all happily help, but often not at our own expense. So it seems that in India the consequences to the financial stability (and therefor the family of the one helping) could be very consequential. It therefor becomes clear that this stops people people from rendering aid. Why was this not tackled?

The interesting part is that:

  1. I am not that clever (really I am not).
  2. This has been going on in India for some time.

No one in Indian Legislation, or the Bar council of India could have started this? This has been going on for years. It is time that questions should be raised quite loudly in this regard and in my humble opinion.

My first thought is that a group of people that others might have heard of at some point should speak out on this issue. For example Prime Ministers Julia Gillard (AUS), David Cameron (UK) and President Barack Obama (US). Then off course a few other names come to mind. Lord Neuberger, Lord Hope, Lady Hale to name just 3 of the 12 that come to mind at present. In that regard Australia might have a few titans to contribute to this cause. There is former Justice Michael Donald Kirby and not to forget Sir Gerard Brennan who is actually presently in office holding the position of Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong. These people are not just names to throw around.

The reason for the three UK justices I mentioned is because I have always seen England as the foundation of law in Australia (it actually is). They are also the roots of law for India, and even though most of us have adapted the protection through the Good Samaritan act, it is interesting that India does not have such an approach (or so it seems to me, so if I am wrong please correct me).

Now, it seems to me that others might be able to help in this regards. The UK at present still enjoys an annoying (read frustrating) amount of red tape all over the place (also locally known as rules of the game). These rules dictate that at some point people become members of an elite squad of people given long term paid vacation (aka pushed into mandatory retirement, and at times against their wills). Amongst these people are Lord Walker, Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe (as per march 2013) and Lord Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead (as per June 2013). These two are Legislative Titans!

As law lords they could be the experts to offer expertise with their views of Legislation, which could assist India direly needs for implementing a clear and quality Good Samaritan Act; one that might give actual support to the women of India, aiding their protection against the current waves of violence that they face. More important, the gang rapes would then be stoppable by all. It would be a strong first step to make things a lot better for women in India.

So, from the thoughts we all might have had on who to blame for their non safety, we moved to a how to fix this. I do think that additional changes are needed. As mentioned in the Daily News and Analyses, people who helped are picked up, have to give statements and it seems that the approach there is extremely discouraging to give aid. That part would have to change too. Combined it will bring improvement to the women in danger there.

Perhaps I am still too naïve at times, but if we selected the field of law, is it not in our interest to make the laws better, more just and more protective for victims?

These thoughts also reflect the thoughts of the founding father of modern India, the Honorable Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Inner Temple), stated as displayed at the bar council of India website “Be the change that you want to see in the world”, words to live by!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 4, 2013 · 13:55

Just and Unjust alike?

We have all heard the utter unacceptable act against a young woman in India. She did not survive the events!

Now for most people from the most just person to the most unjust dealer of narcotics, we all seem to have two things in common. We all hate sex offenders and we hate offenders against children even more. These two events give way to feelings, that we as a people have hope. No matter how we feel about weapons, about drugs and about adult entertainment. We have a genetic drive to protect children and most of us see a woman as respected, admired and desired (not regarded as to be raped and beaten).

There are two issues with this highway of events as they happened the last few months (involving several rape cases).

First of all, most people all reacted in anger when we were told on the news (in my case BBC News) that a woman was raped on Nov 13th and that nothing was registered by the police until November 27th. The New York Times (Jan 3rd 02:00) mentioned in their article that in a similar case the police had done nothing for over 5 weeks. However when reading the Huffington post, they reported that the police allowed time for the families via elders to broker a deal. The even more unsettling part is that the elders tried to marry her to one of the attackers or the pressure on the family to accept a monetary settlement. Now for me the question becomes, how usual is this? I do not proclaim to have inside knowledge into Indian/Hindu affairs. So when reading this, I wonder whether the news was correctly portrayed, and if it was a correct/legal way to set things straight in India. (and no matter how legal, I still find it utterly disgusting that a woman would be treated in this way)

Now, let me be clear. Rape is NEVER EVER an accepted thing, and change as pushed for at present is a good thing in my mind.

I always believed in equal rights, and taking into consideration that out of 1 billion, 500 million people are unjustly treated is a big wrong, however, in my mind, it also means that criminals should be properly represented, or my idea of justice is just a farce at best. So, when I saw the news made mention of an event, that the Indian order of advocates made a move to not represent these criminals, I stood up in disbelief. Now, I will admit that I am not overly against capital punishment (especially against that group), but no matter what. They do deserve representation. They deserve decent defence, if only to make sure that we as a people do not turn into a quick lynch mob. There are rules of processing, rules of evidence, and as such, any party deserves correct representation, so that the law can be kept high, and it keeps the courtroom as a proper place for processing the criminals and the innocent alike.

Now, secondly, the need for a better system, so that the rights of women are correctly addressed is always a must, and it seems that the Indian way of life should be making a change for the better for everyone, not just men. My current concern is that these acts of violence against women are too common, and as such, India as a Commonwealth nation, should have been addressing these issues a long time ago. Why was it not?

Now to get back to the issue at hand, the honourable Sanjay Kumar from the Saket District bar council was quoted stating “We have decided that no lawyer will stand up to defend the rape accused as it would be immoral to defend the case”. Is this not the whole issue? How can justice be an actual issue, when only one side is represented?

In addition, there is an interesting part that became visible to me today. Out of the 228650 cases of violence in 2012, 89% of these cases were against women. THIS IS SHOCKING!

The fact that this is coming out now, to the extent it does. When we read about rights left, right and centre, this remained so undisclosed? Why is there not a lot MORE visibility of this injustice? I do not remember an overly visible amount of reports on this until last week. So, who were reporters representing? Big business perhaps?

However, I do still belief that both parties should be represented. ABC reported that “A panel to recommend changes to the criminal law dealing with sexual crimes was set up last week.” This is only the first week of January and over 650 cases of rape are already reported. I find it more shocking that it took a heinous act of such size for the Indian government, as well as the international press to take notice of this level of injustice.

It is my belief that the Indian government should face visible public scrutiny and that the current Prime minister Mr. Manmohan Singh, should answer the following issues:

1. Why are women’s rights so trampled on in India, a Commonwealth nation no less!

2. Why is due process not correctly attended to? No matter how immoral, if we belief in commonwealth justice (common law), then both parties should be represented. If only to make sure that correct due process is adhered to, and that the law is properly applied. I understand the disgust of the honourable Mr. Kumar, but they do not set policy, and a refusal to represent a party is a change of jurisprudential policy, and it is interesting that current information implies that the government did not respond to the statement by Mr. Kumar. Why not?

3. We seem to go the great lengths to avoid Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and several other nations as business partners as human rights are trampled on. How is this any different? And if we accept that, why is India not on the list? Because many industrialised nations use them for cheap labour? Their moral values seem highly sanctimonious to me.

My biggest fear is that in the end too many men will walk away, as they will at some point shout the defence that no proper defence was allowed for them, which must be prevented at any cost, as it allows for even more injustice.

As for all these so called upset captains of industry. Perhaps you all should consider another solution. In stead of outsourcing TO India, i say that we start pulling out of India. In this day and age of recessions, that should have a very visible consequence in India, and that might be a clear signal for change. When this level of violence against women (89%) is tolerated by western worlds by doing business with these people we clearly have more problems then we admit to. I will not pretend to have all the answers, or even have some of the answers. However, it is clear that a lot more needs to be done, it should be done correctly and it should happen very very soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , , ,

January 2, 2013 · 00:16

PM and the freedom of the press

People might wonder why I keep my eyes on the things happening in Britain. I for one still believe that whatever happens there will impact us, especially in legal terms, development and evolution.

So when I initially read about Murdoch and phone tapping, I was less concerned with his paper here (the Daily telegraph for one), and more with the acts and power base of Fairfax. I have seen how too many people just jump to attention when Fairfax calls. From my point of view they have way too much power, and too many people are really eager to be on the ‘good’ list of Fairfax. This is not an accusation that they are doing anything wrong, more about the willingness of others to be in the good graces of some of these corporations.

From my personal view it would be less about what government thinks and does, and more about how our futures have been too strongly in the hands of companies like Telstra and Fairfax.

So when I read about the British PM commenting on the Leveson report and on ‘his’ fears in regards to freedom of speech, I had to wonder about certain parts connecting to these thoughts. Now most people currently use the Leveson report as a Hype and mention this reports mainly towards the events of Murdoch (which started this all), however, the words of the PM struck a chord in me and not a good one.

I will state here, that (just making sure you do not consider me an authority on this):

  1. I have not completely read it yet (this work is larger than the Hobbit and the Lord of the rings put together).
  2. I am still trying to see the wisdom of certain parts as I did not yet pass Media law as a subject (but I hope to get the option next semester).
  3. It is an UK report and little old me is on the Largest island of the British Empire also known as Australia (I am claiming artistic freedom of comparison in naming it an Island).

 

Lord Justice Leveson clearly mentions again and again, the need for the freedom of the Press (and him being in favor of it), so the fear of PM Cameron seems unwarranted.

There is the question that this view was given in light that in general politicians are slightly too deep in the pockets of the press to further THEIR visibility in regards of their political careers. (I am not implying ANYTHING illegal here, as their visibility does depend on publication of their views, all good and legal).

What I do fear is that most of all this is too often and too visibly NOT about accountability. This report does mentions accountability of government, however there is at present (read as far as I got) too little about accountability of the press. There is some mention of its history by Sir David Calcutt QC (page 205). Volume 2 in part F does mention this failing, although there it is in regards to policies. This in itself is questionable in my view. If a person is not accountable for actions and he works under policies that do not set rules of accountability, or have clear lines of oversight, making sure that ethics are correctly checked, enforced or demanded, what remains?

How can those press organisations be regarded as possible employers? How can a situation evolve as quoted from Vol.2 page 538 where senior management were ‘shielded from anything that was going on there’.

 

If we consider this to be intentional acts of non-accountability, are the issues involving the press not about their freedom, but the essential need for their accountability?

From my point, especially the British press has moved from reporting events to the unadulterated abuse of the wealthy and famous at their expense for the benefit of more money (labelled as entertainment). I’ll be honest. I do enjoy a jab at those on pedestals too high for their own good just like anyone else (with a little moderation), but the press has overdone it for too long, and at the harmful expense of too many.

When we consider this in regards (especially) to glossy magazines, should we not consider criminal prosecution?

Consider this:

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder, and it has been linked to egocentrism.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (DSM IV-TR), defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B). So if this is known, is the over abundant exposure of these people not criminal?

The UN charter defines Principles for the protection of persons with mental illness in their charter since 1991. So is the press hiding behind the freedom of the press in light of a criminal act?

I agree that my view is exaggerated; however, it seems that everyone is supposed to be held to some minimum level of standard. To deviate from this for one group is called discrimination, whether this is positive or negative. So why is the press discriminated for in light of their acts, as they get away with something that is nothing short of character murder.

Not unlike the Lord Justice, I am all for the freedom of press. How else will we know what is going on?

However, I am also in favor of accountability to be introduced to the press. This is not a bad thing. It forces a higher level of quality in published works. That also means that only those versed in journalism, ethics and linguistic skills call themselves Journalists (this excludes the large groups of people with a mobile phone, a Facebook account and only those two to propel happenings into misrepresented accounts of events to be published under the label of some form of ‘Contributor/Announcer’.

(to be continued soon)

Leave a comment

Filed under Law