Category Archives: Law

November 21, 2019 · 11:31

The Prince Andrew debacle

It is seen as it is, yet what is to be seen? There were failures all over the board, yet where are they to be found? It is that part that takes the light out as well, even as we do not realise it. To see that we need to take the camera back, we need to do this, because we can see now, we can hear now, but years ago it was different, it was different as the media you see this goes back to 2005, way before 2005. Even then we see: “He served almost 13 months in custody, but with extensive work release” (source: 2009 quote), even then the media and a lot of people were connected to Jeffrey Epstein; a lot of voices were drowning out what was really happening. I was confronted with it in January 2015 ‘As we judge morality‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/07/as-we-judge-morality/), I added a copy of the affidavit, the Palm Beach records at that point. Because of the Daily Mail headlines I added: “When someone is on a case for this long, is this distinguished (80 commendations), you might want to consider being an actual journalist and look into the matter, especially when it is about a member of the Royal family” They also relied on “Prince Andrew’s billionaire paedophile friend given permission to land private jet at RAF base for visit Sandringham” which was an event that happened in 2000, yet in 2000 there was very little on the events in Jeffrey Epstein’s life, the media was (optionally knowingly) unaware of what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, the events did not come to blows until March 2005. We get from sources: “In March 2005, a woman contacted Florida’s Palm Beach Police Department and alleged that her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been taken to Epstein’s mansion by an older girl. There she was allegedly paid $300 (equivalent to $380 in 2018) to strip and massage Epstein.” After that filing it wold take the Police 13 months to get anywhere, that included a search of his home. It would take a long time before the police had anything at all, In 2006 the Smoking Gun had ‘Billionaire In Palm Beach Sex Scandal‘, yet the American Hypocrite media had very little to say, it was bad business to advocate issues, we have seen that, in all this we see Prince Andrew is getting slapped around, yet his media centre, the one that should have been protective of him, where were they? I am not telling, I am asking!

There are very little records available to me. The New York Times gave us (in 2019) ‘How a Ring of Women Allegedly Recruited Girls for Jeffrey Epstein‘, yet what was out in the open in 2005? Well we see the involvement of Haley Robson, the 2006 smoking gun gives us the Police Case which states (as in image) and is basically part of the affidavit that I added later on. “Several of the victims were recruited by and brought to the residence by Haley Robson to perform massages for Epstein” and apart from the New York Post, there is very little we are aware of when the clock moves to August 2006, Even then we see “But a bitter rift between Palm Beach cops and prosecutors over how to handle the case has put Epstein at risk of more serious charges. The FBI is weighing whether to investigate his alleged contacts with underage girls“, I know that this is a media Bonanza, but as we read ‘The FBI is weighing whether to investigate his alleged contacts with underage girls‘ we read levels of non-determination, or even levels of doubt on a paedophile and this is American ‘justice’ the issues is not even European at this point, even as the affidavit gave way to a larger issue going back to September 2004, and the fact that Robson was included for two years in all this was seemingly not taken into account by the glamour news articles, the papers made very little sense either. The Miami Herald (at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article221404845.html) gives “2005 March: A 14-year-old girl and her parents report that Jeffrey Epstein molested her at a mansion in Palm Beach“, yet the affidavit goes back to September 2004 in the mention and this article is from November 2018, so why is the OFFICIAL AFFIDAVIT ignored?

In October 2006 we get (from the Miami Herald in this case: “With the non-prosecution agreement still being debated, Acosta meets with Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz at the West Palm Beach Marriott on Okeechobee Boulevard to discuss finalizing a deal. Among the terms agreed upon: that the victims would not be notified, that the deal would be kept under seal and all grand jury subpoenas would be cancelled“, so that was the stage 12 years ago, There was a legal deal, one that gives him in the end a 13 month in this Alexander Acosta who would later end up being United States Secretary of Labor after he was Dean of the Florida International University College of Law and before that he was United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (when he gave the deal), that is the level of protection that Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed, the Miami Herald gives us at that point: “the non-prosecution agreement “essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes”. At the time, this halted the investigation and sealed the indictment. The Miami Herald said: “Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims“, so before people go after HRH Prince Andrew, we need to see the real protection that was out there, and the media had a role to play as well, there were no investigative journalists out there in 2005 and 2006 thinking that this might be a larger story that goes all the way to the White House, Epstein was protected, a billionaire optionally flexing his multi-billion dollar wallet. So when we read: “he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. While most convicted sex offenders in Florida are sent to state prison, Epstein was instead housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff’s office, was after 3.5 months allowed to leave the jail on “work release” for up to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week” which was in opposition of “The sheriff’s own policies requiring a maximum remaining sentence of 10 months and making sex offenders ineligible for the privilege. He was allowed to come and go outside of specified release hours” we see an optional different story, he got to (optionally) tell all around him “I am innocent, they flexed the rules, but a real convicted child molestor doesn’t get these options” and the media would not attack those rules, the freedoms given to a billionaire child molester, why not? The person who was at the centre of this deal (Alexander Acosta) would not be persecuted for his part until 2019, and he stepped down as Secretary of Labor in July 2019. We see that Jeffrey Epstein house manager was arrested in 2010 (for obstructing justice) he had a journal giving rise to additional victims, and material witnesses. The events in France did not come out until August 23, 2019 when the prosecutor’s office in Paris, France opened a preliminary investigation into Epstein. He was already dead then.

So in all this mess it is Prince Andrew who gets to be the next victim, the victim of media that is, after all the debatable amount of exposure (none to say the least) the media now sees stuff for circulation, that is the actual crime isn’t it? Papers need to circulate and finding a famous man with a dead girl or a live boy is the best (a live abused girl is pretty OK too). So when we get to the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/20/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-and-newsnight-anatomy-of-a-pr-disaster), we need to have the right mindset, my initial focal point is not the prince, it is his PR and media group (or person). It is not “Andrew had already lost the services of Jason Stein, the spin doctor hired in September to restore his reputation. Stein had reportedly advised Andrew against the whole thing, preferring a longer-term strategy that included a great deal of charity work and interviews with print outlets to mark his birthday“, where were the clear voices to break off any connection that Prince Andrew had with Jeffrey Epstein in 2007 onwards (we could argue 2006, but American Law can be confusing at best)?

And when we see “The unravelling of the strategy began almost immediately after the interview ended. Andrew appeared pleased with his performance, even giving the Newsnight team a tour of the palace afterwards. But when lines from the interview began reaching journalists’ inboxes early on Friday evening, they were astonished by what they read“, who the hell advised him on proper approach to this tinder fest of sulphur laced journalism? In the article Jo Swinson of the LibDems states it best: “how somebody could be talking about their relationship with [Epstein] without recognising, or understanding, or discussing, how he felt about those victims. And I felt they should have been much more at the centre of that discussion“, even as I have issues with “Andrew was facing calls to speak to the FBI from lawyers representing 10 of the Epstein’s victims“, there is a larger issue and the media was part of it, as it is feeling exposure towards the ‘protection’ of the image of Jeffrey Epstein, they are going after a royal like there is no tomorrow, so as we see ‘without recognising, or understanding, or discussing, how he felt about those victims‘, we need to realise that the media gave very little of that in the days that Jeffrey Epstein was alive, why was that?

the New York Post gave us in 2008 “Jeffrey Herman, who’s representing two other alleged victims, said, “The guilty plea is a very positive development for the civil cases,” and “is some measure of justice for these girls.”” I wonder how much recognising, understanding and discussion is going on in that sentence.

Yes, the Prince’s interview was an absolute horror, yet I wonder where the priorities of those who were supposed to have the back of the prince were, was there anyone on his side before he was thrown to the wolves? Oh and before I forget, When I search ‘“BBC” “Jeffrey Epstein”‘ I get 8 results and they are all on the interview, how much digging did the BBC do in the 2006-2012 era? We see all the attacks on Prince Andrew who knew a man that was indecently not researched by law officials all over the world and especially in America, whilst that man was given non-prosecuting options that most of us dream of when we commit murder. Yes the interview was a Prince Andrew debacle, but let’s face it, the media was part of that debacle long before they interviewed Prince Andrew, that evidence is all over the field and clearly readable, but that is the one part that the media does not want you to do, they do not want you to figure out that they were at the centre of letting a billionaire off the hook, especially as that person is now dead.

There is a larger play in all this, I wonder if you can figure it out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alexander Acosta, FBI, Florida International University College of Law, France, Haley Robson, Jason Stein, Jay Lefkowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Herman, Jo Swinson, Liberal Democrats, New York Post, Palm Beach, Palm Beach County Stockade, Paris, Prince Andrew, Sandringham, The Miami Herald, the New York Times, the Smoking Gun, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, United States Secretary of Labor, US

November 20, 2019 · 12:09

Will the punishment fit the crime?

There are crimes out there, some are small, some are not called crimes, they are labelled as an ‘improper offense‘, these offenses are offenses, yet so small that the CPA might decide not to look into the matter.

The Guardian had an opinion piece on the Arms trade two days ago called ‘Is the government turning a deaf ear to arms deal bribes?‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/18/attorney-general-geoffrey-cox-gpt-arms-deal-corruption), now this is an article on bribery, one would consider it to be an improper act, optionally a crme, yet the facts do not bear this out. The setting is not that someone enriched themselves, no, they stated that they spend less than an addition 1%, almost 30% less than one percent to secure a contract: “to win a £2bn contract to provide communications and electronic warfare equipment to the Saudi national guard“, the so called former employee of GPT “Ian Foxley. When he was about to blow the whistle, he fled Saudi Arabia overnight fearing that his life was in danger“, the fact that we overlook ‘the fact that he was merely allegedly fearing that his life was in danger‘ is the first part, the fact that the bribery was there would be an issue for the Saudi Government to pursue (one would imagine), we see in the cold light of day that someone spend 1% extra to make sure that the order was accepted, OK, by law it would be an offense, it would be an ‘Improper offense‘, it might be a crime in Saudi Arabia as well, but they are seemingly not pursuing the matter are they? When we look at the black letter law we see that there is optionally a case to go after GPT Special Project Management, a UK-based subsidiary of the European aerospace group Airbus, yet in light of the thousands of cases not touched, and the fact that there is no actual victim here, should we pursue? Don’t get me wrong, corruption is nothing less than the proverbial blight on life, yet the EU gravy train is not stopped is it? Corporations are not being pursued in light of their activities to self-enrich themselves, are they? Yet there are a lot of eyes on anything accomplished in the Middle East, in this case in Saudi Arabia, I wonder if Ian Foxley would have shown the same candour if the buyer was the US, and they have the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. And there actually have been cases on that combination. Siemens (2008), Marubeni Corporation (2012), Biomet Inc. (2012), Goodyear (2015), and there have been plenty more, yet why is this one case important?

It is not seen immediate, or not until you take a longer look at the UK Bribery Act 2010, The BA 2010 received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010 and entered into force on 1 July 2011 in the UK, a guardian article spent a little time on it in 2013 (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/10/whistleblowers-snowden-truth-sets-free) there we see: “In 2010, Ian Foxley was working as the programme director for a British subsidiary of defence giant EADS on a £1.96bn contract to modernise the communications systems for the Saudi Arabian National Guard. When he came across evidence of corruption and bribery he fled the country and reported it to British officials“. There is an overlap, the UK Bribery Act 2010 was not part of law at that point. The act was not entered into law until 1^st July 2011 in the UK, this does not make the act of Bribery all right, it merely states that an act that is privy to the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, and there we will learn that he agent might optionally be held to the dock, but it will not apply as the one bribed was allegedly part of Saudi Arabia, hence not part of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland. It is the little things that make life satisfying, and the Guardian hiding behind “The delay in making a decision speaks to a deep malaise: suggesting that Britain is simply unwilling to prosecute major companies that are accused of paying bribes to foreign politicians and officials” is both unfair and incorrect, an alleged event took place in the time when the law was being adjusted, is it not interesting on how this one case, a case that should be in the hands of Saudi Arabia to consider prosecution (for the most) seems to get such attention, it seems that Anti-Muslim issues are rearing its ugly head, you see that statement is also alleged, yet I see no such news prosecution regarding Smith & Nephew paid US$22.2 million to the DOJ and SEC in 2012 regarding a deferred prosecution agreement. The idea of “possible improper payments to government-employed doctors” seems to hit people in general, but there is no real overwhelming amount of news there, is it? It seems to me that we are in a larger caser of ignorance when it comes to non-Muslim considerations, oh and that was in the US, how many prosecutions and investigations did Stephen and Nephew face in the UK? I am not telling, I am asking, the news does not seem to make mention of that.

There is also the case CAS-Global Ltd. and the Private Nigerian Coast Guard Fleet (at https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeals/cas-global-ltd-and-the-private-nigerian-coast-guard-fleet/), the Independent was seemingly the only paper taking a look at that (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/two-british-businessmen-arrested-on-suspicion-of-involvement-in-sale-of-naval-vessels-to-nigerian-9991217.html), as I see it, the Guardian might not be guilty, it does have a few explanations to hand out, it will seemingly lash out at Saudi Arabia, but not much beyond that, Nigeria is loving it, I wonder how Saudi Arabia feels about being singled out and let’s face it, I personally perceive the GPT issue what could be set as an ‘Improper Offense‘, so I leave it up to the powers that be to decide, that was Jeremy Wright, trying it again and having Geoffrey Cox decide on it is a little childish, but OK, such are the rules, yet no one is asking questions too loudly on the Nigerian private security company setting up some similar form of payment for services whilst this involved selling 6 Norwegian former naval vessels to a privately owned security firm? And why does it matter, because like me two British business subjects thought it would be lucrative to enter the arms dealer world. It is a whole different level is it not? Robe Evans and David Pegg did write a good piece, and it is an opinion piece and we are and should be asking questions, yet I wonder if the writer intended the questions that are on the mind are the ones he wanted us to have on the mind.

The fact that in this day and age, whilst the UK STILL has not figured out its tax laws on properly taxing corporations filling its pockets in the UK whilst paying so little tax, it should be regard as an insult, are given all the space they need and the laws we see enable them and seemingly set the stage where other cases are not ignored for a decade, all whilst that one case had no real UK victims. OK, I admit that this is the wrong direction to go, but there are cases with an abundance of UK victims that seemingly do not get the attention or the jurisprudence it deserves, should that not be a first for the UK?

It is just one part in all this that we should consider before we consider anything else. And when we compare the Norwegian Navel issue towards private companies and one deal going towards the Saudi Government, where was our focus? That is before we see the elements in the Smith & Nephew deal, so they paid for it in the US, yet how much investigations was done regarding their actions in the UK?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Airbus, Biomet Inc., David Pegg, DoJ, EADS, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Global Ltd, Goodyear, GPT, GPT Special Project Management, Ian Foxley, Improper Offense, Independent, Marubeni Corporation, Nigeria, Nigerian Coast Guard Fleet, Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, Robe Evans, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian National Guard, SEC, Siemens, Smith & Nephew, the Guardian, UK, UK Bribery Act 2010

November 17, 2019 · 13:18

A day of fun

Some people are just too funny; yes this is about yesterday’s blog. I have been accused of having moments of grandeur, well yes, we all have those, but the setting I described is not new, and it is happening right now (not by me alas), there are people who take all that feigned ability for ‘no guns to Saudi Arabia‘ and turn that into a business in their need for green, in this 4 places were historically plentiful, I mentioned three but I left Guernsey out of consideration, it has a few benefits, but it is still a commonwealth nation. So it cannot indiscriminately deal with everyone from there, even in transit law application.

It is also why I laugh at places like ‘Campaign Against Arms Trade‘, the government stops dealing directly and starts dealing indirectly, the only thing that places like CAAT guarantee is that the government gets a smaller piece of the pie, It is a laughing situation and the people are not getting informed because the media will not inform them. Do I want to be a part of it?

Of course!

This is an industry that gets the top dog $100M plus (annual) and his disciples (hopefully at some point me) will get around $25M a year for all the hard work, which is about 50% less work then I do for $65.800, so presently there is all the reason to be of service to people in that business. Let’s be fair, with their work and these invoices, when you get the chance between $66K and $25M, what will you choose?

And that is merely when you look at 1-3 customers, there are close to 3 dozen customers and you could get the up and up for up to 2 years, so you won’t get a job afterwards but you retire with an amount that could be up to $55,000,000 (and a house, and a boat, and a model and a car) which is by the way $54,000,000 more then you ever would have made in any other way and more importantly you are not breaking (bending extraneously most likely) any laws. Transit laws are all about location, location, location and location. So you optionally get to redo it three times afterwards, park the money in a nice account and live the life of non-stop being lazy eating 5 star meals.

That is your life in a republic, monarchy and a corporatocracy. Their laws tend to be the same in all nations and the nice part is that it pretty much always works, so why I am not doing it? Without a first contracts and a first contact there is no starting this solution.

So moving to a place like Monaco without any contacts and business on your way, you will end up having no options. You have better options in Lichtenstein and Andorra, whilst living expenses are a lot lower, the amount of contacts will also be close to zero. Guernsey is the one out of bounds, it has commonwealth laws, and even as it has tax benefits, it does have a few setbacks in the arms trade, not for traders initially.

Then there are a few other places where you can trade like there is no tomorrow, yet you need to have your lawyer on standby 24:7 (which is tedious, let me tell you). Still Monaco is a great place for all this, as long there is no transit VIA Monaco you are doing fine, in the past the Netherlands were a great transit nation, but I am not sure if their laws have been adjusted in the last two decades. There is a lot to get through, and that is at times part of the joy to get to the juicy bone. You see, it is not only the Middle East that needs help, there are a whole range of issues with American arms dealers, There are Russian oligarchs that cannot show their face in certain places and they all need dealers, the money will remain good for a long time, because they end up making a lot more and that is the central nail in the coffin, as long as they make good money, you get to make scraps (in their eyes $25 million a year is a scrap). As such you can have the lifestyle you want providing you can swallow that BS agreement called morality. Consider CAAT your destination for the data. They have (at https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences-eu/licence.en.html) for 2017 $159 billion, now a lot of that is normal arms trade yet there is nothing stopping you from being an in between for 2017 $295 Million, 2018 $260 million and 2019 $305 million (expected). You are basically in a place where you could get 0.1%-0.2% of the arms trade agreements and that is slightly optimistic, you’ll end up with $55M-$65M in 2019, would you not do that? I would!

And in all this, the top 6 recipients are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, India, the US, Egypt and the UK, all decently rules nations, all with a normal seat of power, all needing to defend their borders, that is the Wacky part of CAAT, even as India, the UK and the US are allowed to defend their borders, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are not?

That’s just dealing in double standards. Oh and when it comes to double standards, in that list Iran has less than 1 billion and Lebanon was the destination of 2.2 billion, so what about all the rockets they fire at Israel? As far as I can see it, CAAT has no records of them, is that not interesting as well. OK, I am not counting the 350 missiles they send a week ago as this charter has no 2019 data, but Gaza has been firing rockets on Israel for years now and they cannot build these themselves, so the data is already flawed. That is the problem with CAAT, their idealism is out of whack, for people like me that is a good thing down the road (If I ever get hired) for the arms makers it sucks a little as I am getting part of their profit share, yet in the long run, those board directors would have spent it on blow and hookers (suggested speculation) so it’s good that they lost it (for me in more ways than one).

When you travel the field of import and export and you can handle transit laws the road might seem bumpy yet it still leads to a road giving you 100,000 times the amount you could have ever earned. And this field is not over, because even as we check out the need for arms, we see that several nations have a much larger need for pharmaceuticals. To be the small independent trader seems to be an interesting time, all because we had morals, you tell me how good morals are when you knowingly are not stopping anything, you only indirectly hurt the national product.

Yes it is a fun day.

Oh and Oman, Lithuania, Kenya and Pakistan need hardware too, my day is looking up already (when I get any of these calls that is).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Andorra, Arms deals, Barhrain, CAAT, Egypt, Guernsey, India, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Transit laws, UK, US

November 15, 2019 · 11:55

There is more beneath the sand

The Australian Financial Review has an interesting article that they released a little over 12 hours ago (at https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/is-saudi-arabia-s-royal-family-ready-for-a-market-economy-20191112-p539sv), the title ‘Is Saudi Arabia’s royal family ready for a market economy?‘ is an interesting view on the issues that are coming around over the next decade. Stephen Cook gives us part of the goods, yet I wonder if he is cautiously holding back (an acceptable stance for any journalist) or is there more?

That is not an attack on the article; it is well written and shows a writer with a good grasp of grammar 😉 He also makes a few very nice observations. The issues that come from that are not always visible, but we should argue before we get there that any cautious journalist does not need to go there; a blogger like me on the other hand is (at times) all about the informed speculation. So when we see: “to pull off Vision 2030, Mohammed bin Salman needs some of the international goodwill he enjoyed until mid-2017“, that partially true, most of it can however be built with money and Saudi Arabia has plenty of that. At which point Mr Cook takes that frying pan and hits us with “There’s just one problem: the Aramco IPO is far riskier than the Saudis are letting on“. He gives it in the form of “The Saudis are offering stock in 2-5 per cent of the company. One of the sticking points has been valuation“, he is true, and we see that in the article that there is a margin of valuation (depending on the offerer) that is almost 50%, And that is not the only part, there is a view that Saudi Aramco will value at almost twice the price of Apple, that is a lot and there will be an actual benefit that Mr Cook does not offer. He does give us that the Saudi offering could end up netting between 24 billion and 115 billion. No matter how this turns, there will be plenty of Saudis all wanting a share or two, a population supporting its own national product, so there is interest, the benefit we do not see here is the corporatocracy that the EU has become, with value in the fire of shares, whatever Iran will think of next will bounce back, any attacks is no longer a mere Saudi Problem, Saudi Arabia has done something interesting. By offering 2.5% of a company its visibility will become global and that is the first nail in a coffin named Iran. And that is not the only one; there is another benefit to see when we take a harder look at Vision 2030.

You see Vision 2030 will be a clean systems sweep of 5G (and 4G lte) systems, the old 3G and other systems will be absent, the Saudi’s will get a much better view of what is needed in the 5G atmosphere without having old equipment holding it back, you might laugh, but do you have any idea on the amount of equipment out there switched on because there is some ‘twittle’ hardware connection, or the owners merely does not know that some equipment does not need to be turned on? It amounts to almost 7% of the electricity bill and the amount of technology and hardware involved shows a massive amount of additional loopholes requiring fixing. You might not think this is essential, yet when we realise that there is an amount that is between calculated and measured that is not addressed, we see a much larger issue, in at least two cases I have seen the ‘connections’ merely being ‘improperly’ addressed, I wonder what else was not done. Vision 2030 will allow us to look at hardware connected and we will see a whole range of equipment never connected. There will be an amount of niche markets that will evolve because of it and as we see that evolve, whoever is working in Neom City, will get an interesting benefit to this change.

Getting back to the IPO, there is every concern that the quote “Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has every reason to keep the Saudis on the defensive and mess with Aramco’s IPO” has value, yet the first one who is part of the IPO will have the benefit of calling out Iran’s actions and now there will be nations with skin in the game, Iran is basically done for and it needs the nuclear benefit of playing the bully, yet it is running out of time no matter how blind the EU tends to be. When any Wall Street corporation has skin in the IPO, they will report it to any channel willing to expose Iran and that is what Iran really does not like, you see playing the bully only works when no one is looking at you and that option is about to end. They will now enter a stage where the writer claims ‘make investors nervous‘, yet when they go a little overboard and ‘make investors angry‘ their benefit is gone and that is why they need the nuclear pact to be in their favour. A bully merely knows no other way to look at matters, but now we see a much larger field and Iran is about to get exposed a lot more.

So now we get back to Neom City, the writer gives us “The plans (and promotional video) were impressive, but the effort failed miserably“, yet he gives no reason, I will, The amount of media willing to give Neom City the light of day could be counted with two hands, with the hundreds of accepted media in the Aether, they all shied away from Neom City and it was not Jamal Khashoggi. It was in part America and in part Europe that was scared. A city that is stated to be 22 times the size of New York is a building marvel, it would be no less than another world wonder and the powers that be have no intention of letting Saudi Arabia walk away with a world wonder, not in this age. Even as the bridge to Africa might never become a world wonder, the bridge itself will be a global accomplishment and it will give larger gains to Saudi Arabia. In addition it takes another premise, the city of Sharm-El-Sheikh (Sinai) would gain in several ways, whilst the bridge would open Saudi Arabia to Egypt in larger ways. It would also open up technology paths to Saudi Arabia. In addition we see: “Mohammed bin Salman has calculated that he has a greater chance of eliciting the loyalty of his subjects – and thus shoring up his power – by giving them movies, concerts, and WWE wrestling events; reining in the religious police; and granting women the right to drive“, yet it is missing a part, with the building needs growing for close to two decades, we will see a new class of people, A class to Egyptian Muslims working in Saudi Arabia growing the population and growing a larger stage of a new population drive, those needing a better life, we have seen this in America and Europe and it will drive a new need in these people finding a niche where they can settle their family in growth, that part will be new to Saudi Arabia and it will create new wealth group and a larger drive towards Saudi Arabia. I reckon that Saudi Arabia could grow to well over 20% this was and the size of Neom city would allow for a much larger growth giving new options to Saudi’s and those wanting to be Saudi.

As I see it Saudi Arabia could over time grow that IPO to be up to 9%, so basically it will get access to 3 times that maximum of 115 billion, with an offering that over time will be close to $400 billion, we see that Neom city has been paid for, at that point with the IPO in place, and Neom city ready to grow Iran will be shown to be the bully of the Middle East, and bullies can be dealt with in swift ways by any global population that is clearly aware, which now leaves us Hamas and Hezbollah, we actually need not look in those directions, Israel is looking there already, we merely have to wait what will happen next, with these two elements clearly in lace it will not take long for technology firms to seek their nesting grounds in Neom city, Huawei is actively looking, Google has set its premise, as have Apple, Microsoft and IBM (who added 197 jobs in the last month alone), so the need is being addressed, now it merely takes time for the entire stew to settle, once all the elements have been added, we only have to wait (which will be the hardest part), yet there is little to no doubt in my mind that when we see the elements of Neom City, we will see a much larger shift in the west, it will not only be to stay on par with Saudi Arabia, it will be to get all the residual hardware and all the non-effective hardware to be removed from hundreds of places, I reckon that the US will face a new technology need at that point.

You see, in the end, there is less to a decade to a ‘futuristic city’ and a technologically ‘apt city’, Saudi Arabia is about to show the world that part and all the other nations will need to show that they can keep up and with their debts sized the way they are that will be the hardest issues for them and the US knows it has a large problem keeping up, as does the EU, they never thought that they would require to meet wits with Saudi Arabia, they never thought it was ever going to happen, as such they were not ready. Iran is banking on it, in the end I wonder which of the two elements will be the strongest, I’ll let you figure out what I mean.

i believe that by 2035 the global technological will be redrawn, it will be a map that the EU and the US will not be happy about. The Wall Street Journal gave a nice presentation 4 days ago with ‘U.S. Government Is Tripping Over Itself in Race to Dominate 5G Technology‘ and ever as we see sources stating: “U.S. officials say the country is in position to reap those benefits”, we merely need to see SDXCentral giving us: “AT&T is tempering expectations for its forthcoming 5G network riding on sub-6 GHz spectrum. While AT&T says it was the first wireless operator to demonstrate 1 Gb/s and later 2 Gb/s speeds on a commercial 5G network running on millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum, it’s not making any grand projections for a speed improvement on its forthcoming 5G network running on the lower spectrum bands” (at https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-down-on-low-band-5g-speed/2019/11/) to see that they are all running for the advertised word and there is a large hiatus between the ‘advertised word‘ and ‘achieved technology‘, that difference was seen at the end of October as Reuters gave us: ‘Trump says U.S. will cooperate with ‘like-minded’ nations on 5G networks‘, everybody on the US sided mind is trying to fix the backlog that they have against Huawei and some of them have a huge backlog, when we see “Trump has held numerous calls with foreign leaders, including British Prime Minister Johnson in August, to urge them not to let Huawei use 5G networks“, yet at by the time have we seen ANY EVIDENCE that there is a national interest failure on Huawei hardware? America hopes that it has taken the hardware drive and fixed its own economy (and the mere fact that we will not ask questions), yet Saudi Arabia already has ties to Huawei giving Saudi Arabia the option to pull ahead and make the monthly gap larger on a daily basis. The difference is that intense. There is more and more evidence to see that the EU is not going the way of the US and that will give them an advantage on the hardware range, yet they still have all the other old hardware to deal with. They could face two issues, let’s not forget that Riyadh faces that too, but if Neom City shows the benefit to a newly constructed fast internet city, what we saw in the UK 5G image, that path will be faster seen in Neom city, merely because the change is pushed from the beginning and not after the fact (as most technologies are).

The ‘what 5G is about‘ shows what 5G could do and in many nations we see part of this appear over time, yet in case of Neom city, with a 5G focus it will come all at once, it will give Arabian software Engineers a larger playing field and a playing field on rolling out some of those solutions anywhere else in the world. It is a path that we seemingly forgot about and we have seen this path a few times from Japan and the US, just the idea that Saudi Arabia will be able to focus on it was never in the sight of any of them and it is scaring them, Neom City has become that scary to both the US and the EU (well and Japan too). They have all been in the mind for well over 5 years that they see it first in Japan and later on it will be rolled out to the rest of the world. Now that setting changes those in charge are afraid, they have no ties to Saudi Arabia and no ways to make them.

Fear will be the key that the US and the EU will employ to set issues straight, and stopping Neom City to a much larger extent will be their focus, which gets us back to the quote we saw: “the effort failed miserably“, There was as I see it a much larger need to keep it out of the media, the people just never got to see all the elements that were clearly visible in 2018 when initial view of Neom City was given. I saw the first parts in May 2nd 2018 when I gave “the attached Burton presentation ‘Opportunities in Saudi Arabia – Vision 2030 and Beyond‘ spends two slides on it and the most important part shown is “Vision 2030 calls for 50 percent of military equipment purchases from domestic suppliers instead of imports“” a presentation by Edward Burton, President and CEO, U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council from June 2017. (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/05/02/are-there-versions-of-truth/) in the article ‘Are there versions of truth‘ I had not realised all the elements at that point (why should I?) yet I saw that Vision 2030 would be a bigger issue yet the larger impact would be visible beyond “90 executives from both countries to sign new trade and investment agreements worth $350 billion” the fact that in these 90 we would see “Lockheed Martin ● Honeywell ● JPMorgan Chase ● The Dow Chemical Company ● ExxonMobil ● Jacobs Engineering ● Baker Hughes ● McDermott International” was clear, the fact that Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Steven J. Demetriou) was involved was a clear indicator of that. I believed that whatever think-tank Edward Burton responded to was seeing ‘roadmap for economic development‘ and ‘Identifies general directions, policies‘ and optionally ‘CEDA established new operating models‘ and realised that this went way past the Council of Economic and Development Affairs (Saudi Arabia) there was an actual global impact. This setting has merely taken an accelerated view, especially in regards to Huawei, there is a much larger setting and we will soon see that the impact is global.

Darn! I was not the first to notice!

Even as we realise that the Council of Economic and Development Affairs was created in 2015, there is a larger stance where Saudi Arabia has found the flex point where they will become a global player, that is why Iran is scared, that is why other parties are about to play diminished roles and they are all afraid, their status quo is about to be removed.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as Aramco IPO, Australian Financial Review, Baker Hughes, Boris Johnson, British Prime Minister, CEDA, Council of Economic and Development Affairs, Donald Trump, Edward Burton, ExxonMobil, Honeywell, Jacobs Engineering, JPMorgan Chase, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, KSA, Lockheed Martin, McDermott International, Mohammed bin Salman, Neom city, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, SDX Central, Sharm-El-Sheikh, Stephen Cook, Steven J. Demetriou, The Dow Chemical Company, Trump, U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council, Vision 2030

November 14, 2019 · 10:46

A change in reporting

An event has taken place, the event is out there, yet the day it is reported gives rise to a much larger problem and it is time to make sure that it is highlighted. In this case it is a story from Oliver Holmes (Jerusalem) and Hazem Balousha (Gaza) and the article was printed in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/13/gaza-death-toll-rises-israel-confronts-islamic-jihad-militant-rocket-fire) last night. The article relies on ‘Gaza death toll rises to 21 as Israel confronts militant rocket fire‘ (a truth with ‘confronts‘ being the only operative word), as well as ‘Islamic Jihad fire 250 rockets at Israel from strip in heaviest fighting for months‘ (truth) which follows “Two days of Israeli airstrikes against Palestinian Islamic Jihad militants have killed 24 people in Gaza, in some of the heaviest fighting for months that resulted in widespread bombardment and more than 350 rockets launched from the strip into Israel” (a truth), so why is this an issue?

For now I will refrain of what is written after this, the essential issue is that the reader is only warned that the Israeli actions are a direct result from 250 rockets fired at Israel. (a half-truth). To see the overall picture we need to take a look at CBS news that gives us: “The military said more than 250 rockets have been fired at Israeli communities since the violence erupted following an Israeli airstrike that killed a senior Islamic Jihad commander accused of being the mastermind of recent attacks” (at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-strikes-islamic-jihad-rocket-launches-palestinian-death-toll-over-20-today-2019-11-13/)

So basically:

Israeli uses aircraft’s to kill Islamic Jihad commander.
Well over 250 rockets are fired at Israel.
Israel responds to well over 250 rockets fired at them (according to one source over 350 at present).

Israel has the rights to do what it believes is fair, it has the right to respond to missile fire and the Guardian should not print the way it should. Even as the quotes are in light of the events completely true, even as Gaza hides behind “The dead included a 7-year old boy and two other minors, according the Palestinian ministry of health. More than 70 others were wounded, including 30 children and 13 women.” In the article, the clarity of the story is not merely who was hit and where the collateral damage is, but the fact that CBS gives us ‘Israel hammers Iran-linked militants in Gaza Strip “without mercy” – at least 21 dead‘ in the headline, as well as “Israel has stepped up its battle against Iran and its proxies across the region the appointment of new, hardline defense minister Naftali Bennett. After the deadly targeted strike on Tuesday, an Israeli military official said the country had had “no choice” but to kill the Islamic Jihad commander” we see a much larger picture. It is even larger when we accept the words given to us by the Times of Israel. here we see: ‘Iran agreed on Gaza front in case of northern war‘, so when I was of the mind that something needed to be done about Iran in ‘When you get played‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/11/08/when-you-get-played/) we see two parts, the first is Iran and their need to start wars whenever and wherever they can and the second one is that all this was known in Intelligence services, this is not new, so WHY did the EU do nothing?

That so called lighthouse of freedoms is ‘hiding’ its inaction regarding Iran, why? Well, my view is that it only seems to be in a good place, but the debts of the EU have turned the EU into a corporatocracy and in such a state of government only losses are visible in any war, large corporations will not allow for wars to deal blows to their bottom line, as such for historic reasons the EU should turn their running language to German (a WW2 pun).

In addition to all this, the Times of Israel also gives us “Hamas deputy chief Saleh al-Arouri said that Hamas and Iran stand on “the same path” in fighting Israel, Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported at the time” giving us a stage where the issues in Gaza will escalate, not diminish. In addition to all this, there is a larger issues down the road, If Iran gets Hezbollah to also do its attacks, Israel might be backed into a corner to attack both fronts and after that make a direct attack on Iran, Iran will only have itself to blame at that point and whomever gives support to Iran at that point forward will find themselves the focal point of Israeli Intelligence operations.

My issue with all this is why these two reporters in the Guardian missed all that? Some of the reports came before their piece was written and some of the open source intelligence was already leaning this way, the fact that my article from a week ago gave sight to the actions against Israel give rise to these questions. It becomes a much larger issue when we consider the quote in the Times of Israel quoting Haaretz “The Haaretz daily quoted a senior security official as saying the intelligence establishment estimates Hamas and the Islamic Jihad group will try to force Israel to move forces and air defense systems to the south at the expense of troops fighting in the north“, OK, I will agree that Haaretz might not be the least biased source, but the information contained in its publication (much earlier) gives rise to officials seeing the movement of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, as such why is all that missing? Because it was not about the rockets, or the bombings? I think that they are all related and the article is what I would call a clear setting towards rise (and additional rise) of anti-Israel feelings, consider the quotes you saw and can check with the larger extent of the Guardian article relying on one word ‘confronts‘ do you still think there is nothing wrong? Especially in light of all the other media we see a larger need to find the truth and this is probably the first time (as far as I can tell) that the Guardian masked an issue to this degree.

And we wonder why Israel is considering the validity of national sources of intelligence? Hah!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as CBS News, Fars news agency, Gaza, Haaretz, Hamas, Hazem Balousha, Hezbollah, Iran, Islamic Jihad, Israel, Naftali Bennett, Oliver Holmes, Palestinian ministry of health, Saleh al-Arouri, the Guadian, Times of Israel

November 13, 2019 · 12:26

Uber driving facts

It seems that people do not like Dara Khosrowshahi that much, it all started with Jamal Khashoggi and now ever the Guardian staff member Edward Helmore adds to this with: “Khashoggi, a Saudi national resident in the US, and a severe critic of the Saudi regime who wrote for the Washington Post, was murdered in Istanbul last year after visiting the Saudi Arabian consulate there. His body was dismembered and disposed of“, it is the part ‘His body was dismembered and disposed of‘, that part cannot be proven and in light of that we also have ‘was murdered in Istanbul last year after visiting the Saudi Arabian consulate there‘, at best we can use these sentenced with the added word of ‘alleged‘. That is the foundation, anything else is a joke, we have laws and we seemingly (at least the media) uses the law to hopefully get better interviews by incorporating slander (as I personally see it), by using the name of Aggy Calamari, UN essay writer the writer thinks he can just marginally add the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia into this mix by stating: “His death has been described by Agnès Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, as a “deliberate, premeditated execution” that warrants further investigation into the responsibility of the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman“, you see, there is no evidence of killings. I am not digressing; I believe that a bad fate has befallen Jamal Khashoggi, although one can argue that he is 97% more known after than before is long term absentee. When we in what is (laughingly) called the free west, can we claim that part when we just apply laws on a mediocre level? By the way, the article is (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/11/uber-jamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-mistake-dara-khosrowshahi)

And the part where Aggy makes a jump from Istanbul to a Saudi Crown prince with “warrants further investigation into the responsibility of the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman“, even as the article did not reminiscent on it, the truth is that the report is using: “The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, the Washington Post has reported. The Post said US officials expressed high confidence in the CIA assessment, which contradicts Saudi government assertions that he was not involved.” something a collection of papers have been using since that report was given freedom to fly anywhere. You see, I have an issue with “US officials expressed high confidence in the CIA assessment“, now we can bid high and low with the CIA, but they are the people who instigated the silver briefcase tour with Colin Powell, at least they had graphics in that assessment, can anyone tell me where those Iraqi WMD’s were? And why was it by some laughingly referred to as Operation Whatever? So before we give any level of certainty to the CIA, we better be sure that the right people are looking at that data.

All issues that Aggy Calamari should have been aware of, yet her report was laden with CIA elements.

And now we get to the attack on Dara Khosrowshahi “In an interview with Axios on HBO, broadcast on Sunday, Khosrowshahi was asked about the Uber board member Yasir al-Rumayyan, a director of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which is the company’s fifth-biggest investor“, which is followed by another assumption “He was seized, killed and dismembered by a Saudi hit squad“, we cannot prove any of that, and why is that? There is no body, all matters are subject to supposition, the Guardian refused to follow supposition when it came to Grenfell, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), you know that building where ‘Grenfell Tower blogger threatened with legal action by council after writing about safety concerns‘, coming from a warning letter from solicitor, Vimal Sama, dated 25 July 2013 and addressed to Francis O’Connor, accusing him of “defamatory behaviour” and “harassment.”, I reckon that the entire matter is off hand as the building looks a nice charcoal black, you know that building in North Kensington, yet when it comes to one journalist, and one the bulk of the planet does not give a hoot about, we see supposition on top of supposition.

One could even argue that HBO, after the finale of Game of Thrones, HBO needed a new channel for emotions, and Axios seemingly provided. My point of position I clear, I do not know who did what, because Jamal Khashoggi was never found, we can assume that he was killed, at present he is merely missing (murdered requires additional evidence) but we cannot prove any of it. In case of Axios, there is a simpler situation, the setting was loaded before the interview and Dara Khosrowshahi has handed a curveball that he tried to ‘laugh off’ or diminish. It was his interview on HIS Company, on this there was mention of one of his board members, a Saudi individual named Yasir al-Rumayyan, director for the Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund. The entire article that was on the interview of Dara Khosrowshahi was washed into another article (trying to) slap the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia around, I think that the articles writer Edward Helmore made a few mistakes, getting into Journalism might be one of them. So whilst we reminisced on ‘American intelligence agencies concluded that it was ordered by Prince Mohammed‘ my request becomes simple ‘Can we please see that evidence?‘, because not unlike the entire WMD issue that was apparently happening in Iraq, I will be able to punch holes into this issue as well.

Oh, and I was not talking about that flimsy piece we saw in Aggy’s essay, I want to see all the raw data available, perhaps I will be turned around, more likely than not, we see the need for turning heads away from other matters, we have seen it before, but I am willing to investigate the evidence (curiosity killed this cat, miaow).

The fact that makes this entire matter so interesting is that this one cat Jamal Khashoggi gets all the capture and the 231 journalists have been arrested after July 15, 2016 in Turkey get ZERO words from pretty much ANY newspaper around the world. Whilst Mehmet Akif Öztürk was jailed for 8 years and nine months in February this year, his colleague Turgut Usul (presenter) has been jailed since January 2018 pending trial. Oh and perhaps someone can find out what crimes Nazlı Ilıcak did, he was sentenced to life in prison with solitary confinement. I wonder how many journalists are out there what crime a publisher/journalist has to undertake to find himself in a lifetime of solitary confinement. Perhaps Axios could look into that, they seemingly need an emotional side in there broadcasts now that HBO has ended its game of thrones.

I wonder how long it takes form the people to wake up shouting some stupid slogan involving Jamal Khashoggi whilst there are issues out there that are a lot worse and in light of the diminished value of journalists, the entire mass is getting crazy shouting: ‘A pigeon is pooping on the street‘ whilst one corner from that place someone is shooting pigeons left, right and centre. I wonder if the who is shouting the claim so that no one is watching the one shooting all the pigeon’s one street further.

I wonder if Jamal Khashoggi realises that his value allegedly dead is seemingly 1000 times higher than when he was still writing some column in the Washington Post.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Agnes Callamard, Axios, Colin Powell, Dara Khosrowshahi, Edward Helmore, Game of thrones, HBO, Jamal Khashoggi, Mehmet Akif Öztürk, Mohammed bin Salman, Nazli Ilicak, Public Investment Fund, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Crown Prince, Turgut Usul, UN special rapporteur, Vimal Sama, Washington Post, Yasir al-Rumayyan

November 11, 2019 · 12:57

The deal

There is a deal out there, at least in the UK. There are all kind of deals out there, the consideration is all in the eye of the beholder, yet what is the deal?

The independent has a few views, the first one is ‘Labour and the Tories are both desperate for a taxpayer-funded spending spree – I don’t trust either of them‘ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/labour-conservatives-general-election-spending-plans-economy-a9195736.html), yet its by-line has an interesting thought ‘makes me wonder who is actually monitoring the books? Who is in charge of the economy?‘ Yet that is he issue and it has been n issue for close to a decade. Another article is focussing on ‘Which chancellor would you prefer to ruin your life? Sajid Javid or John McDonnell?‘ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sajid-javid-john-mcdonnell-general-election-chancellor-brexit-labour-a9192161.html), yet in the guardian we see: ‘Labour derides £1.2tn Tory costing claims as ‘work of fiction’‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/10/labour-derides-12tn-tory-costing-claims-as-work-of-fiction-corbyn) there is a larger issue at play, there is no doubt that both sides have parts that make sense, yet both are as the Guardian states ‘Both parties have promised significant increases in public investment, funded by government borrowing‘, this is however not a great time.

The dangers that are out there is the fact that Austerity is a path that is slow and cannot be fast, there is still a decade of austerity at the very minimum and this spending spree will add half a decade. The Guardian also gives us “The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said the Conservatives’ investment plans would amount to an extra £20bn a year, and Labour’s to £55bn a year” whilst tempering this with “Javid declined to say whether the Conservatives would implement promises made by Boris Johnson during his campaign to become leader, which included an increase in the threshold for higher-rate tax to £80,000 a year“, the problem with that part can be seen through the numbers giving by the government (at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2017), and that is merely two years ago, so when we look at the chart, how much of that collected money will give any kind of relief towards austerity?

The problem is that the people are sick and tired of austerity, but that was going to be the controlling majority to deal with debt, we can call it ‘austerity’ or we can call it ‘debt control’ the UK cannot continue the spending it had done for the longest case, not if they do not want to be vassals of banks, and the problem is that the largest collection of banks are those out of the UK, the only way is to fall below that spending spree and that is not a popular solution to listen to. Yet the numbers are clear and I get to laugh out loud for almost a year as Labour made these promises whilst the budget just didn’t allow for it, and the funnier part was that the proper taxation was key, not merely the richer people all people and more important corporations, yet Labour did not really give any of us the view that corporations were to properly taxed, were they? And the one chart I gave you shows that taxing the right will not give us anywhere near the funds required, so why is Labour connecting to its members with fairy tales and a conundrum of stories that could be minimised to a level that gives them the reality of a magical roundabout (the one with Eric Thompson doing the narration). The situation is that bad and we are just not catching on, why is that?

In that case the Libdems get closest to it by “The Liberal Democrats’ central spending pledge is a radical increase in childcare, which they said would be free for all working parents from when their child turns nine months old, at a cost of almost £15bn a year. They said they would fund it by reversing corporation tax cuts and increasing capital gains tax“, I wonder how much you can tax capital gains tax, and I have questions on how you will ‘reversing corporation tax cuts‘ but they do have the right idea in part, as I see it ‘reversing corporation tax cuts‘ is the better stage, and what do you think will happen? Apple will suddenly decide to reduce new locations from 15 to 10 (no great loss there) and others will follow suit, when the going is less profitable they will all vacate towards ‘bonus share’ percentages and all of it out of the UK, I personally believe that it is time to stop giving into the need of corporations, but that is just me. And the most important part remains, you cannot do any of the spending until taxation is clearly established, All parties need to learn that inescapable truth, because it is already too late for alternatives, the UK, the US, Japan and the EU have been playing the spend card for too long and whilst collections have been delayed and outstanding the world has no reserves left, this generation is the first one handing out money that was means for the grandchildren, and we all let them do it. And whilst we read ‘Javid has adopted a considerably more relaxed approach to balancing the books‘ with empty persuasion we forget that they already ended up spending the money that was meant for our children and now they are busy spending the funds meant for the grandchildren and I wonder what excuse they will use to let that continue?

There is a larger inequality and that inequality is not addressed, why is that?

And when it comes to excuses “The Brexit minister Kwasi Kwarteng also sought to defend the Conservatives’ calculations on Sunday, but refused to give an equivalent for his own party’s spending plans. “I’m not going to bandy around figures,”” The question is what is worse, not being into the act of bandy, or giving us fairy tale figures? I honestly cannot decide, omission or denial, both seem to be keeping the voters away from having a judged informed decision and as far as I can tell, none have any idea of where they will get the money from to fund whatever they need to get elected. At present the UK has a debt that amounts to 86% of GDP, whilst Germany has one that is a mere 62% of GDP, now there is an additional side, Germany has a much larger GDP as they are supplying for the need of many, the UK does not have that option, As such it amounts to £2.265 trillion and that amount grows well over £5,000 per second, as such the debt might seem a mere £62,500 per taxpayer, but when we look at a debt of £36,400 per citizen do you think I was kidding when we are currently spending the money that was meant for the grandchildren? With a debt of £2.265 trillion, the interest cannot be below £225 billion a year, so when you look at the total collected taxation, did you think that the previous chart gets anywhere near that amount? Oh and for Germany (in comparison) €1,990 trillion Euro, yet their debt is diminishing, it has been that case from 2010 onward when it was at €2.035 trillion Euro. Germany is ahead of the UK there, and for now it might be €48,000 per taxpayer and €24,000 per person they are merely seemingly in a worse place, yet their total debt is still going down every second, the UK debt is still increasing and until that comes around the UK has no cause for cheering or for some debatable spending spree.

The rich cannot fill that gap, anyone who says differently is lying to you, it is time to fill the gaps, reversion tax gaps is one part and making corporations accountable for whatever scheme they have next is another part, it is time to let corporations pay for their mistakes, as we need to hold the ruling parties accountable, the clear path seen is the fact that whatever is available for your grandchildren is diminishing and your vote is a clear path in stopping that. So make sure you follow the right party, I’ll let you figure out who that is.

Oh and one small consideration, when the entire EU, the UK, the US and Japan, Russia and China all have debts in the trillions, where do you believe the wealth of the world is?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Conservatives, Eu, GDP, Germany, IFS, Independent, Institute for Fiscal Studies, Japan, John McDonnell, Kwasi Kwarteng, Labour, LibDems, Sajid Javid, the Guardian, Tories, UK, US

November 9, 2019 · 10:54

Finally!

Yup, there is a new fashion in town and it will force the companies to fix the one element in IT that most corporations have ignored fixing for the longest of times. The issue that needed fixing for the longest time was non-repudiation, the issue has been clearly around for almost 10 years, 15 if you want to set a time table, but today on LinkedIn ‘Netflix and don’t share‘ shows that the industry will start doing something about it. The problem is what drives the masses to think that a paid service could ever be free. And even as we see: “Market leader Netflix has already declared it is examining how to curtail password sharing among family and friends. But streamers are treading carefully in teaming up “against the grifters,” aware of the backlash record labels previously generated in the Napster era” we need to be aware of the setting that it is a Netflix world and if you don’t pay, that is fair enough, but it also means that you can’t have Netflix. This issue is not limited to Netflix, it has a setting in video games, a setting in programs and in the past it had a setting in music. The problem is how to go about it. For places like Netflix, there is the non-repudiation solution, so in your network there are a few devices that could be set to receive, in the home environment the router tends to be the most culpable solution, yet in equal measure the home devices are also solutions that give rise to the patch of hardware that will allow one person to be connected, as such, Netflix was nice enough to allow 4 devices to be linked. Yet what to use as a system of non-repudation?

Well, email is certainly one way of doing it, but that only helps to some extent, the nice part about e-mails are that it allows Netflix (and like-minded people) to communicate with the owner on hardware, so as long as the email address is not hacked, this is decently safe.

Non-Repudiation

The term Non-Repudiation is not new, It refers to the ability to ensure that a party to a contract or a communication cannot deny the authenticity of their signature on a document or the sending of a message that they originated. So you and only you could have instigated the connection, bio-metrics are only one part of it, so is a password, non-repudiation is more, an autograph have the elements to complete non-repudiation, but in automated traffic, a copy of a autograph is becoming exceedingly simple, so we need to set the state where two tiered enabling is the way to go. Even if the origin of the two tiers was done in separate ways, combining them in any stream would be a decent level of assurance to convict a jury of peers (and Netflix) that only you could have instigated the stream. And Netflix is not the only one seeking for a solution. Bank solutions, use a pin and a bank pass, it is close but in in the end it is not real non-repudiation. Netflix needs to find a solution and whatever they find will push authentication technology.

And the system needs to be simple, not just for customers sake, the setting of complexity in these matters was best described by Scotty the Chief Engineer in Star Trek 3 whilst sabotaging the Excelsior: “The more they over-think the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain“, it does apply to authentication and non-repudiation systems, especially when distance is an issue. So whatever we have at point X requesting for an authentication that tends to be the soft spot in the track.

It has to be simple, it needs to always work and it needs to set 2-3 alternatives at the spot. The problem with such a system is that it is not really non-repudiation at that point.

For example

A programmable dongle can be hacked; the hacked account can be copied. And these dongles will come from somewhere, so criminals will end up having access to the stuff they need.

As such the best you can hope for is a system that will take out 80% from accessing such a solution, add proper cyber solutions in the form of law and you have a solution that a company can live with, as it deals with 10% of the outstanding 20%. It is not pretty at times, but at least it works. So these solutions could stop 90% from using stated systems in a non-paying capacity.

We can go in all directions from there, but the world needs a solution where non-repudiation will stop 96% dead in its track, and only up to 1% would be able to find a workaround. Making the non-repudiation system a 98.9999% working solution. I reckon that this is as good a solution as we are going to get and the solution is needed faster as 5G will require correct non-repudiation solutions to be up and running. With 5G out and about, the criminals get a 500% chance to get to more systems to infect more and more devices as such the need for Common Cyber Sense is becoming a pressing matter and from there we can move onto non-repudiation. Consider that the current situation allowed cyber criminals to lay their fingers on $120 billion dollars and with 5G out and about criminals will have access to well over half a trillion dollars, one could argue that it is a great day to be a cyber-criminal, or we can do something about it, because the one thing I do know is that the banks will only take hits for as long as they cannot make a case for ‘negligent care, the person did not take care of the item like a father would take care of its child‘, that is not some rant, the art world is already working with terms like that. How long will it be until banks and payment systems will take the same steps? At that point, the hardship will fall on the owner of the hit bank account, not the bank, unless a clear established path of evidence is presented that the bank itself was the intended target.

Oh, and when banks are no longer held accountable how much attention do you think that the FBI has for little you? Common Cyber Sense will be the immediate requirement.

Non-repudiation will be the big next thing soon enough and whoever gets a system like that up and running will make an absolute fortune, it would change my 5G IP systems into small change, nothing more. It is the next thing and we are in dire need for such an inventor soon enough, not just Netflix.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as 5G, Common Cyber Sense, IP, Netflix, non-repudiation

November 8, 2019 · 12:22

When you get played

Do you remember the feeling you get when you get played? Do you know of that inanimate feeling that gropes into your chest and rips out your heart? Well that is the feeling of getting played and the Iranians are getting exceedingly good at it. The Guardian article by Patrick Wintour, Diplomatic editor is off course really eager to aid a little by not informing his readers of the news we had 3 days earlier and I spoke about it at ‘The tradesman and the deal‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/11/05/the-tradesman-and-the-deal/), The information given there makes the entire ‘Growing calls in Iran to abandon nuclear treaty, ambassador warns‘ a little obsolete, moreover the statement by Hamid Baeidinejad giving us “it was government policy to remain in the treaty” whilst there were three transgression, beside the one where Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation told us that “enrichment is now up to 5kg per day, up from 450g less than 60 days earlier“, perhaps Patrick Wintour, Diplomatic editor could enlighten us how this part, a part that the Guardian informed its reader of is missing from his baker sale of facts. (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/07/growing-calls-in-iran-to-abandon-nuclear-treaty-ambassador-warns)

So when we see the part “Baeidinejad said the advocates of withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty asked why Iran should be submitting to UN atomic agency verification of its programme when other countries did not recognise Iran’s right under the treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” my response would be “Well Mr Baeidinejad, in the last 40 years Iran has shown no lack of aggression, it has shown no lack of restraint, your nation is a direct threat to the State of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia“, so are you good Mr Baeidinejad, or do you need more? I gather that Mr Baeidinejad would need to be a glutton for punishment if he wants me to continue and that is before we get the Iranian acts via Hezbollah in the mix.

Patrick seems to have an interesting view of diplomacy. I see that there is no other option but to go with Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State in his statement “It is now time for all nations to reject this regime’s nuclear extortion and take serious steps to increase pressure. Iran’s continued and numerous nuclear provocations demand such action” there are two reasons for this, the first is off course because Mike Pompeo is right, the second one is that this action would lower stress levels in both the State of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that this definite act will get a sum of three for the price of one, I remember a diplomatic reason as well, perhaps Patrick Wintour remembers that one (I can’t do all his diplomatic stuff, now can I).

There is optional a second benefit that we might get here, if we act in a demanding way from Iran, Hezbollah might get scared enough (it will make all kinds of claims) but in that setting, it will fear whatever the State of Israel throws at its borders, it will have a first need to fear, with Iran removed from acting, Hezbollah will fear what comes next and I believe that there is a first need to deal with that terrorist organisation. With the EU admitting: ‘EU admits preserving Iran nuclear deal ‘increasingly difficult’‘ the actions of the EU are becoming largely questionable, especially when we look at the damage that Iran can do with nuclear energy, their need to increase production of nuclear materials by 1000%, in light of all other elements give rise to a larger failing by the works and its diplomats to reign in the actions of Iran.

In my personal mind I believe that some diplomats have taken up roles of doubling or in some cases tripling their activities, isn’t it a perfect idea that a failure to control an element could be sold to both camps? And the EU has 27 camps to work; it must be heaven to be a diplomat under those conditions. Yet when Iran decides to use their materials even once, the consideration will be a lot larger than any diplomat can deal with. And there is the problem, Iran does not realise what they are playing with, merely that playing with those materials give them a seat at the grown up table, whilst millions have to accept a life of fear this situation to continue, that stage is over and it is high time that we recognise it.

I am willing to go one step further, any attack with nuclear material, no matter how it is done, should result in a nuclear attack on Iran, specifically Iranian oil reserves and Tehran, even if they have their excuses ready, even if they get Hezbollah to pull the trap on a small dirty bomb, we will be able to link the materials back, yet at that point some diplomat will be briefed to say that there was doubt on the materials used. At that point will you know that we have all been played! We will see evidence of being played before that, but that is the one non-undeniable act of getting played, I wonder how far some diplomats would be willing to play this game. You see that is the danger of a corporatocracy, its spreadsheets does not recognise the State of Israel, its spreadsheet is not loaded with food, it will think that there are always two food sources fish and beef, and when for Southern Europe fish is off the menu, their beef needs will increase, so more profit, that is the danger of a corporatocracy.

Consider the very last element, the idea that the article removed all mention of claims and considerations that we saw three days earlier and consider the fact that Iran has broken nuclear accords three times already and the EU is still not taking any actions, wonder about that part. Because we are running out of time and every day that we do not act, Iran gets to play another day, all whilst they increased production by 1000%, it is time to be less accommodating to Iran, and we need to make sure that they learn that any action against Israel of Saudi Arabia will be taken at the highest level and we will hit their oil reserves and Tehran, they left us no other option. When diplomats consider the conversation to be going forward when there is no forward momentum, or when they rely on old fashioned horse trading, we have a danger, you see, for the horse trade to continue, Iran would have to use nuclear materials and that is the one act we cannot allow, we are left with actions we would rather not consider and the diplomats call that plan B, but plan A is not working and whilst they remain in denial of the status of plan A, we get to live with the fear of Iran making a move, I believe that diplomacy has failed, it does not matter whether it was under orders of the Iranian military or the Iranian clergy, we get to push the button and leave Iran in a mess so that the next 5 generations also realise that there is an end to patience, and anyone considering the quote ‘But we are still talking to Iran, we are not there yet!‘ they need to realise that they became part of the problem and that they were never part of the solution.

Doesn’t it bite a little harder when diplomats are playing you?

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Ali Akbar Salehi, Eu, Hamid Baeidinejad, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mike Pompeo, Sam Wintour, Saudi Arabia, State of Israel, the Guardian, UN atomic agency, US Secretary of State

November 7, 2019 · 10:24

A report from the messenger

I am happy to say, I am happy to report that I am not an expert, nothing of the sort, an expert I am in fields that are different, but in this I am not. I have watched a thousand or more movies, all shapes, all sizes and in many playhouses, in some that were called fleapits, then there were some nickelodeons, there were movie houses, playhouses and there were a Cineplex or two, often holding on the cinefex when going. Yes, I visited cinema’s from large to small, from Lantaren to Venster, from the original Cinerama where I saw the Cinerama edition of 2001, I have seen many places, yet I am not an expert, perhaps as close as one can get, yet I too was befuddled when Afua Hirsch (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/06/oscard-ban-nollywood-film-lionheart-oscarssowhite-nigerian-film) alerted me to a wicked situation. In Nollywood, where the Holly and Bolly are not found a movie was released. The movie Lionheart is using English; you know the version of American that was heard before July 4^th, 1776. These American are sore winners are they not? she used the headline ‘An Oscars ban for a Nigerian film shows the Academy still doesn’t get it on race‘ to alert us to the situation.

Afua got me with one little part of her article: “Directed by and starring the Nollywood titan Genevieve Nnaji, it is a captivating look at family, class, sexism, politics and the texture of life in the Niger delta. It’s both very Nigerian and very relatable for audiences who know nothing about Nigeria” it was not the only part, but that part made me curious of the movie, Nigeria, a place famous for princes and princesses that have access to millions, and they are willing to share it if you can just hand over your bank details. However there is plenty of goods coming from Nigeria, movies was new to me (as far as I know), So when I was informed that “Yet Lionheart has just been disqualified because there is too much English in it” I woke up fast. Now we do know that the US is not really that literate, so for them The Queen’s English might be as far from Yankie Doodle Dandy as Spanish is and they have to make such waves to understand that, that the movie Lionheart “does feature the Igbo language, which millions of people in eastern Nigeria speak“, OK that was new to me, Well I knew that people in Nigeria had their own speak, i just (until now) did not know it was called Igbo. So it has two foreign languages for Americans. So when we see “And this legacy of empire, even though they were once part of it, is what some American institutions don’t seem able to comprehend” we get part of the fix, which is alarming for the movie maker of Lionheart, well, at least it will have a bigger chance at the Bafta this year, so it seems that Lionheart will “the American Academy expects films competing in its “international feature film” category to emphatically not be in English” no matter how much Queens English is in the movie. It does define the term #OscarsSoWhite in a bitter new definition; will the people like Helen Mirren and Simon Pegg unite making that concept into a comedy? Perhaps with Tom Cruise as the director trying to skate on both sides of the fence?

Let’s face it, Simon Pegg can make Paul an American (someone whispered to me that Tom Cruise played Paul in the movie bearing his character name), in that case Nolly can be an American too.

Yet in all seriousness

The quote “The American film establishment is clearly struggling to grasp the basic idea that there are Africans who speak English. Viewers get this: Nollywood box office revenues increased by 36% last year” is a decently first milestone in recognising that American standards are nothing to talk home about, In a stage where American values are given to the Oscars, yet for most movies America is merely 25% to a third of the revenue for most American movies whilst the rest comes from the larger screens all outside of the USA, the overly (or is that overtly) standard is set outside of a beach of values we need to consider movies to be in? I believe that Hollywood needs to reconsider its values, before Nolly and Bolly take Holly for a ride in a convertible and show her exactly where things are at.

It sounds foreboding, but it is not, in this age where games are taking the front of where movies are, the idea that Holly takes a bow and takes the list of settings where the grey areas are addressed. The idea that Hollywood has grey areas is just beyond believe, I mean what would we call Alien? A British, Non-American documentary of Space Exploration? I mean, let’s get real here. The games industry is about to dwarf movies in a major way, it is time for the people en mass to get on board and let’s face it, there is no saying how this goes in the future, so Nollywood could be a presence in gaming soon enough.

So today I am happy that I learned something today, Afua Hirsch taught me that Oscars are not a measurement we should be proud of, perhaps it is the year where stars and viewers decide that Bafta is the way to go when it comes to Cinematographical awards, so to all the Nollies in Wood, Welcome to the Bafta’s (well at least Lionheart).

I look forward to learn more of the Nollywood movies, should be fun after a bland year of American cinematography.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

Tagged as Afua Hirsch, Alien, BAFTA, Bollywood, Cinerama, English, Genevieve Nnaji, hollywood, Igbo, Lionheart, Nigeria, Nollywood, Oscar, Paul, Simon Pegg, the Guardian, Tom Cruise

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives