Category Archives: Law

April 17, 2016 · 18:42

What the law allows

This is not the usual article for me. This is not a mere look at facts and at information, one could say that I have skin in the game (me using the loosest of all interpretations). You see, I know Paul Farrell. We might not be on the same side at times, for the same reason I am on opposite sides of Brendan Molloy, but we all went to the same University and I know them both to be good people, both with integrity and with a decent moral compass. These issues matter. For the same reason that I stand next to David Cameron, yet I remain holding a healthy respect for Ed Miliband. Ed sees things wrong (read: does not see them my way), but he truly believes that he was fighting the good fight for his party, which is all that mattered.

So how does this relate?

You see, whenever the name Edward Snowden comes up, it seems to raise a red flag for me, like a bull my horns go into battle mode. There is something really wrong about the Snowden case and it forever will be from my point of view, so when I read ‘Edward Snowden on police pursuing journalist data: the scandal is what the law allows‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/17/edward-snowden-on-police-pursuing-journalist-data-the-scandal-is-what-the-law-allows) got my attention to the smallest degree, yet when the quote “singled out for critique the Australian government’s contention that it broke no laws in its leak investigation of Paul Farrell, a Guardian reporter who in 2014 exposed the inner workings of Australia’s maritime interception of asylum seekers“, I became wide awake. You see, I know Paul, which makes it another matter entirely. This links back to an article where Paul Farrell was part of a team (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/07/asylum-seekers-will-be-handed-to-police-on-return-sri-lanka-confirms), that reported on certain issues. The quote “a group of 53 legal experts have called on the federal government to reveal how asylum seekers are being assessed on board customs vessels” points towards an issue that is very valid to be raised upon. When we see “a group of 53 legal scholars from 17 Australian universities warned that the government’s conduct under its hardline military-led border regime “Operation Sovereign Borders” was in violation of international law“, that point of view does not change one bit. The press has every right and even a mandate to report on it (read: why this is not done more often in commercial cases remains a mystery). These elements are not part of the actual spying issue, but they are related to the issue.

The rest of the article reads nice, but there is a side that I saw missing. Where were these people stopped? You see that makes all the difference. How far have people looked into the matter? When we consider UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), we need to consider article 17 where we see “Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea“, which is at the heart of the matter. Refugee boats are for the most smugglers, meaning that they cannot rely on ‘innocent passage’, in addition, article 18 gives us the passage bit with “traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters“, which is exactly what smugglers are intent on doing, and whilst doing so we get article 19 where we see “Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State“, which again is exactly what smugglers ignore, because the status of these people cannot be confirmed, as such they can be regarded as prejudicial to both the peace and the good order as well as the security of the coastal state. Perhaps these 53 legal experts looked at that part, perhaps not (read: if I get any documents proving that part, I will reopen this blog article at a later stage).

So at this point, I saw an article that has issues, but I see nothing short of a mere article, nothing that should have woken up Edward Snowden, more important, why did it wake up the AFP? The article gives more than just 53 legal experts, it mentions “Hanson-Young also called on the minister to reveal the fate of a second vessel of 153 asylum seekers believed to have departed from India“, it mentions “The Tamil Refugee Council of Australia” as well as “UNICEF Australia and Save the Children said they were also “seriously concerned” over the secrecy on the second boat“, which are clear quotes, clear issues to be raised by a member of the press, so why do we get: ‘Federal police admit seeking access to reporter’s metadata without warrant‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/federal-police-admit-seeking-access-to-reporters-metadata-without-warrant)? You see, in the 2014 case we have the quote “The Australian government’s “on-water” activities to turn back asylum seekers have been shrouded in secrecy under the military-led Operation Sovereign Borders. They led to several incursions into Indonesia’s territorial waters in December and January”, you see, this makes it not an AFP case, but an ASD case as this was a military led operation. The quote: “incorrect calculation of the boundaries of Indonesian waters” is even more hilarious especially when you realise that RADAR, SATNAV and other means tend to show shorelines, can we assume that those on board of the Ocean Protector should have known these little facts? If not, than let us meet with the captain and discuss the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, where we see in section 2(a):

Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

Which gets us nicely to the duties of being a ship’s captain, where we could now conclude that the Ocean Protector could be regarded as in violation of that pesky UN law named UNCLOS, to be more precise in violation of section 19 of that one, because it could be seen as acting against the ‘security of the coastal State’. This is why I looked at the IRPCS, as that is foremost on the mind of any ship captain, which gives us section 2a and this now gets that person in hot water with section 19 of UNCLOS. Going from other sides there are now the 1^st and second mate to consider of the Ocean Protector, as the transgression, unless clearly defined in a military agreement, could be cause for a tribunal and as such the captain could stand a chance to be ‘captain-no-more’, which means that the mates move up a position, this is sometimes regarded as promotion through termination (read: this doesn’t always require extreme prejudice).

My issue is less with the statements of Edward Snowden and much more about (as I see it) the stupidity of the AFP to look into a matter that has so many clear sources named, especially names of people who would know more than the article revealed that the investigation into Paul Farrell seems to be a waste of time to say the least. To be honest, I am much more worried about the escalations we get from the SMH with the title ‘Scott Morrison to share Australian Christian Lobby stage with anti-gay extremists‘ than anything Paul has written here (sorry Paul, I am not trying to diminish your work).

You see, the article Paul partially wrote asks questions, they ask the right question. What is a clear issue is: “the secrecy on the second boat and were worried that unaccompanied minors could be on board whom required additional assistance from Australia under international law“, now also consider “The council had previously stated that at least 11 of those on board had previously been tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities before fleeing“, we see a pattern. A pattern that some elements (I reckon mostly UNICEF) had data and information that was vital, in all this we see the statement that also matters “Morrison told Sydney radio that the second boat was no longer in Australian waters“, so basically Morrison has clearly stated that the second boat had entered Australian waters. Yet when and where? This does not change my view on UNCLOS and its interpretation of it, but it does have an issue with what happened afterwards and the Guardian does not really report on it, it asks questions. Now if Paul got Morrison to make the statement, than that does not make Paul a better investigative journalist, but it does make him an awesome and dangerous interviewer and no matter how he got the quote, he did get the quote and Morrison will have to place his virtually burned bum on a cushion for a little while. So why did the AFP need the metadata of Paul Farrell?

You see, I look at the article with different eyes, as a data miner I see other patterns and the article skates on one that seems to be ignored. We get that from “The AFP have undertaken a number of investigations targeting journalists’ sources, many related to stories about asylum seeker operations“, a statement where I see ‘many’ in a different light. I am wondering, especially in light of what was written why Paul’s data was sought for. My assumption is that there is another side to this. I personally reckon that Paul has had interactions with another person, on perhaps another story. I reckon that someone else is under investigation and Paul Farrell is only connected to some extent.

Can I prove this?

That is of course part of all this. You see, I cannot without seeing more than one source smitten with all this. But consider all the sources the Guardian has had. Any maritime issue can be much easier ascertained by the ASD (and it was a military led operation), they have a lot more resources and any maritime leak can more easily be traced at the maritime source (you know the instigating server side of things). In all this, the quote “Earlier this year Guardian Australia reported that the AFP had accrued a file of at least 200 pages on Farrell in an attempt to uncover and prosecute his confidential sources” from the ‘surveillance’ article now matters. It links to a Feb 12^th article where we see the quote “In April 2014 I reported for Guardian Australia that one of the vessels involved in Australia’s unlawful incursions into Indonesian waters, the Ocean Protector, had gone far deeper into Indonesian waters than the government had disclosed“, which is the statement that caused all this. You see, the Ocean Protector is a government vessel, yet a civilian one that falls under the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The ASD has options here, but it seems overkill to use them when it is not a military operation. The ASD can rely on “The Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) provides foreign signals intelligence, known as SIGINT, to the Australian Defence Force and Australian Government to support military and strategic decision-making“. So why use the AFP instead of a much better equipped ASD? That is the question that comes to mind. What is without doubt is that this is not merely a Paul Farrell investigation. This is just a personal opinion, but when we see the amount of sources Paul Farrell had, in addition if the ship had an Automatic Identification System (AIS) on board, was it logged off and shut down? Even crew members with a smartphone turned on could have been enough of a source. A dozen sources all lower than open intelligence sources, were they looked at? In addition if the Ocean Protector had any switched on Esterline Technologies equipment on board, there might be additional ways to get certain information. I wonder how deep this was investigated before someone had the less than bright idea to, no matter how lawful I was, to the metadata of a journo?

The article raises questions, and what it does not tell us makes me wonder about several other questions, none of them considered.

In all this the by-line of a picture in the February article gives us “Michael Pezzullo, secretary of the immigration department, told a Senate committee this week he had referred a cabinet leak to the police. He also referred a Guardian Australia journalist to the AFP after a report that revealed a customs ship had entered Indonesian waters far deeper than previously disclosed“, which makes sense, yet that line gives me the issue of the Cabinet leak and a lot less about the Guardian leak. It seems to me that the massive file on Paul Farrell reads like a bright light, one that dissuades away from the cabinet investigation that is one that many parties would want to keep out of the press. I just wonder what Paul will find when he takes a look at that Cabinet member and the information that is being looked at. I am not certain that it will be about Asylum seekers or refugees, or another matter entirely, but that again is merely speculation from my side.

Can I be wrong?

Off course I can. You see, my speculations are merely the consequences of data I saw and other data I read. Now ask yourself, knowing the backlash spying on the press gets you; do you think that the AFP is actually this stupid? As I raised issues of location tracking in many forms, the essential part isn’t whether he got a hold of that data, the question becomes how many non-illegal methods could he have used to get it. So, the actions by the AFP seems to be a massive overreaction. That is even before we see whether the Ocean Protector is on http://www.marinetraffic.com. Even after that, there are Indonesian systems to consider. If anyone had revealed that data it would have been a political issue between Indonesia and Australia (the second party without any claim to secrecy within the territorial waters of Indonesia). All these mere issues, all clearly within the view of the public, the audience, the press and the governments at large.

So now ask yourself: ‘Is there any sense to exposing one’s self to internal investigation as the press demands visible answers?‘

That is why I got to the path I am on. Consider one additional path. If we consider a phone number, for example (purely a random example): 8816 273 14432, now consider that this is an Iridium sat phone. You see these puppies also tend to be on boats. They have been used in many non-metro environments since the mid 90’s. These puppy’s come with data and GPS enabled and Iridium is actually one of the better more secure solution, there are few cheap ones that offer very little security. So was this about Paul Ferrell, or did Mike Pezzullo (or one of his top minions) drop the ball in another way and was this his panic solution?

These are mere thoughts in all this. It took mere minutes to get to this place and I had initially read the article in February. We must acknowledge the issue that “Law enforcement did not need a warrant for accessing the information at the time“, which is not as much a cause for concern as people make it out to be. Let’s face it, we are all held to a need for results. So was the AFP wasting time? In my summary they were for other reasons. The need to give the image that they are looking in one area is adamant, for politicians the need for the AFP to look somewhere else is equally their personal need, yet where lies the real need? On the foundations given, it was clearly not looking aty Paul’s data I raised many issues on that matter.

This gets me to the final article. There is nothing about the article that is wrong, it is the reflection of Paul Farrell (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/australias-attacks-on-journalists-sources-are-about-politics-not-national-security). The title ‘Australia’s attacks on journalists’ sources are about politics, not national security‘ hits the mark on several issues. The quotes that I needed in my case were “It’s become a sadly normal reality that journalists’ sources can be targeted in Australia in an effort to hunt down whistle-blowers“, the operative word here is ‘can‘, which is not a given, just a mere option. It does not make the action correct. What is more an issue is “this is the first time the AFP has ever made such an admission in Australia“, you see, why is this the first time? Was there too much overwhelming evidence, or is was the clear visibility of the search a reason to hide something else?

You see, that could be seen as a clear case of ‘conspiracy theory’, but regarding the evidence. The document (at https://www.scribd.com/doc/298816051/Paul-Farrell-AFP-Decision-Letter-and-Documents) that reveals nothing really, there is too much marked out. So was this a clear case of wrongful investigation, or was that the case because it dims the lights of what the AFP is actually looking into. So when we see the quote “From the AFP’s point of view, it has done nothing wrong. As it has indicated in its statement, it has sought to undertake investigations within the scope of the law. It has “sought to identify the source of the disclosure, and then determine whether they had the appropriate authority to release that information”“, to me it shouts not ‘what was wrongfully looked at‘, in my personal belief it screams ‘We are actually sneakily looking at something else‘, again, it is a speculation and I could be massively wrong, yet there is enough in the air to wonder about that issue, not just by me.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as AFP, AIS, ASD, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Australian Signals Directorate, Automatic Identification System, Brendan Molloy, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Edward Snowden, Esterline Technologies, International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, IRPCS, Michael Pezzullo, Paul Farrell, Scott Morrison, SIGINT, The Tamil Refugee Council of Australia, UNCLOS, unicef, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

April 16, 2016 · 14:44

What inspiration was there?

There are several things going on. We have Brexit, Frexit, issues with government, bankruptcy of America and there are the tensions. Racial in America, religious in Europe and even in Canada, a nation where the scariest thing is switching off the lights now has a level of tension that Canadians have not seen in many decades. Yet, this is not a light article, this story will turn darker than black soon enough.

Yet, all is not lost, you see, one man’s disaster is another man’s fortune. An issue I actually just stumbled upon. The article that started it is not the one I’ll start with. Let’s start with: ‘Exodus of 10,000 millionaires amid rising Muslim tensions‘ (at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/france-sees-millionaire-exodus-religious-tensions-rise-1552423), which is all about France. This article actually gives us a little more than some bargained for. The quote “The report was compiled by New World Wealth, an agency that gives information on the global wealth sector. The report was based on data collected from investor visa programme statistics of each country“, you see, that in itself sounds nice, but the super wealthy will have houses on Nassau, Manhattan, possibly London and South America or Australia. You see, these people can travel all over the place, their passports usually do not require visa’s as they go about their spending spree, meaning that they re-locate every 3-4 months, never entering anyone’s field of vision and the authorities will not care as they come to spend. It is the second part that does have an impact “annual interviews with around 800 global high net worth individuals and with intermediaries like migration experts, second citizenship platforms, wealth managers and property agents; data from property registers and property sales statistics in each country; and by tracking millionaire movements in the media“. I personally think that this goes a little further than that. Consider the following news: “Millionaires are leaving Chicago more than any other city in the United States on a net basis, according to a new report“, which is the news we got from the Chicago Tribune. That news is a little more over a week old, but the overall image is forming. The US cannot correct its infrastructure, the people are no longer safe in their homes and racial tension does the rest. These people will have options (as reported) in Seattle and San Francisco. I reckon when places like Minneapolis clean up its crime part, places like that, as well as Lancaster Pennsylvania will get additional attention, these are places with traditional grounding, meaning that older traditional values still bring strength to the table for now. For now is a massive element, but that changes as more and more imbalance sets in. All this because there was not clear correction after the Global Financial Crises in 2008. An issue fuelling Brexit, which only gives the US more to worry about when their currency takes a dive. So will the image of American mansions move to the image of mansions in South Africa, where a wealthy person has a high fence and armed security guard patrols?

Perhaps, but have no fear Vivos is on the case. You see at http://terravivos.com/ where you can tour the largest underground shelter. Is this mere scaremongering? I am not certain, let’s face it, when the dollar does collapse, it will be a dangerous day to be wealthy in America, this is the escalation that was always a risk and has grown into a real clear and present danger. These racial tensions are now getting labelled ‘the Trump effect’, yet is that actually valid? I am not certain, as poverty becomes a stronger issue, the issues between the Democrats and the Republicans will explode, yet overall that makes neither side evil or wrong. Yet, the followers on those two sides make that a realistic cause and effect escalation. As mentioned earlier, we see the rich moving away, but where to?

Other states were mentioned in articles, some will go abroad, yet no matter which of the two happen and state finances will take an additional dive. No matter how their taxation goes, these people spend a decent amount of money on a weekly basis, which now means that millions per week in retail is lost. It seems like a little thing, which it is on a spreadsheet, but in all that the middle class will get hit slightly harder and they have no means to just pick up and leave. They get to live through another downgrade of infrastructure and soon thereafter their funds start diminishing as the overall retirement focus gets lost to factors that do not matter.

So Vivos has a solution. Well, it uses (bought) some of the cold war executive storage facilities and have turned them into solid 5-star survival bunker. A little bit like the Fallout games. There is only one small difference. When these shelters are used, there is little chance that this will be because of nuclear needs. There will be no radiation shielding you from extremist ramifications. The intro movie on their site shows the very first Achilles heel (and that is not the only one). You see, the intro shows the entrance and the long way down to the entrance door. This means that the alternative is not getting in, it is just to dump one cement truck load of concrete down that hole. The cement once dried will make it impossible to open those steel doors (after you weld a bar in front of the entry door), you walk away and within 2 years 80 billionaires will be without food, water and an entrance. So after 15 months a few trillions will have been freed up. This is relatively easy as you only need to find one engineer who worked on it to find out where it was. A system this big will have been talked about, engineers talking to their little boys and girls on how daddy made a safe place for the President, so the location will no longer be a secret!

Yes, they can take loads of precautions, but in the end, it cannot be done from within the entrance and soon after everything that is not on the inside will move from asset to liability. How long do you think these people inside the bunkers have when that point arrives?

The issue remains, what we saw as fun fiction in the 2013 movie Elysium is a lot less far-fetched than one might believe. Even as we know that several sides are pure fiction, the idea of a space station for the super wealthy is technically possible. We have the technology to get it made, they have the cash to build it for real. Real Estate at a billion dollars plus, where the only issue is the oxygen, but that is a mere shuttle away. Yet to get the required number of billionaires out there to agree to this, is perhaps not yet possible. So what is left, a giant cruise ship? A place that never goes to any harbour? Here we have the increasing need of fuel and energy, which a space station would not have as solar panels would be active 24:7. So is a bunker as portrayed in the game series Fallout a reality? That is indeed the question, as stated, it might sound nice in case of pandemics and disasters, but the population is not a disaster (actually it is), those people can solve things, being in a fort is one thing, but when the outside walls are riddled with hostiles, it will only take one clever hostile to drill a hole and fill it with water or concrete. Vivos already has the pricing up for Indiana. $35K at a one-time price. Yet, what happens when the year is up? How to get food and how to get the other resources? Indiana has 80 places, Europa one in addition of 500. So what happens when they become an actual reality? Yet in all this, there is another side where Vivos might be regarded as a failure. The quote “built to provide a minimum of one year of autonomous underground survival before needing to return to the surface after the worst is over” gives them one year, but these social tensions will not be solved within a year. So what will happen when Europa one hits zero resources? They also offer bunkers for on your own property. A place like in those 50’s shelters on your own turf. Yet in all this Vivos is actually sitting on an additional product, you see, when we consider the shortage of housing, the need for something portable and something lasting. Apply this to something slightly more mundane like a 20 feet container and you have the beginning of a solution to get housing to refugee centres. I personally believe that the IKEA Solar-Powered Flat Pack Shelters for Easily Deployable Emergency Housing (at http://inhabitat.com/ikeas-solar-powered-flat-pack-refugee-shelters-offer-easily-deployable-emergency-housing/ikea-refugee-shelter2/) is easily set and shipped, yet they need construction. That is where issues could exist. Yet, if containers become part of the additional framework. Giving structural support on the sides making these houses even sturdier, than this is a solution that should be investigated. You see, the other solution is way too dark and it is one that many seem to be negative towards.

This goes beyond the mere need for refugees. When we consider the 7.3 earthquake that just hit the Kumamoto region implies the need for housing as a 7.3 quake tends to leave loads of people homeless as houses collapse. The Vivos solution is actually a lot sturdier in earthquake terrain as the aftershocks tend to lay waste to the IKEA solution, which makes perfect sense, IKEA brought an emergency solution, not a solution that survives emergency devastation.

In all this another side is illuminated. This is seen when we consider the news of January 26^th 2016, when we got the news “The rarest of the black rhino subspecies, the West African Black Rhinoceros, is now recognized by the ICUN as extinct“, mainly due to poaching. So it is time to go into that darker than black place.

Do we deserve to survive?

Do we, rich or poor, healthy or not deserve to survive, this is the question that is on the minds of a fair amount of people. As more and more species become extinct, we need to consider the one part most people are unwilling to do. What happens when we make our own kind close to extinct? What is we get rid of 93%? Leaving us with a mere 500 million people over the entire planet? This gives the planet time to heal. The extinct species might not come back, but consider that it took 120 years to get from 1-2 billion, after that the growth got greater fast, growing a billion in mere decades instead of centuries. We need to get back to those times. There are additional benefits. There will be no job shortage, houses will be cheap as dirt. A life where there is no need for massive oil reserves, no need for Wal-Mart or other mass markets. A mere market for what we actually need. A massive reset of the planet. The question becomes, when we dwindle the population as the super-rich are in a bunker? Would that be an act of Genocide?

Genocide is defined as ‘the intentional action to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group‘, the UN adopted on December 9^th 1948 the General Assembly Resolution 260 through the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). This act is the crowning achievement by Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer of Polonized-Jewish descent.

Interesting is the definitions we see in articles 2 and 3 (at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html). Here we see ‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such‘:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This is the ‘interesting’ side in all this, the poor or the ‘abundantly present’ are not set definitions. So the question becomes, are we as ‘users’ of the planet not equally responsible for the continuation of the planet? What happens to that law when you have no set group, what happens when the goal is just to cull the population, what makes it genocide? If it is not that, how many ‘greens’ are willing to sit their life for murder when their hearts tell them that this act they undertook, saved the surviving animal species of this planet and the long list of extinctions end overnight?

By the way, if you think that my ideas are extreme, than realise that I was not the first to voice them. Dr. Eric R. Pianka voiced them in 2006. He got reported by William A. Dembski who informed the Department of Homeland Security that Pianka’s speech may have been intended to foment bioterrorism. Leave it to a person with degrees in Mathematics and Theology and mislabel a mathematical uncertainty as ‘bioterrorism’. In the end, Dembski is right, if we are to save the planet, bioterrorism might be all that is left as a methodology to achieve it. Chemical and nuclear leave too deep a mark on the planet and the life forms around us. Bio toxins have the danger of leaving a mark, yet when they are only affecting people, it becomes ‘less of an issue‘, especially when we leave 500 million alive, most of them farmers by the way. Soon thereafter the Tiger and Orang-utan will get their homes back. What Rhino’s remain can grow their numbers and the fish will reconquer the oceans. Whether it becomes a disease like Ebola as presented by Dr. Pianka or like in the TV Series Helix where 99% of the people are made infertile, we have however surpassed the time to sit back and relax, so it is not impossible that I see the actions required to achieve all this before I pass away.

If you do not believe me than ask the West African Black Rhinoceros, oh no, you can’t we made that one extinct already. So how much else is needed before we realise that out time has a diminished timeline? I once came to the calculations that we have little more than 7 generations left. 7 generations until we have destroyed our planet to the degree that it will no longer support viable eco system. The fact that Pianka made his presentation in 2006, gives weight that we are further down the rabbit hole than we predicted and that my calculation was optimistic. The interconnection of species has been ignored by those in mere pursuit of greed, the overall need for wealth that has taken a lush planet and decimated it in less than 200 years. What will we do yet? The Vivo presentation could be the idea of an entrepreneur marketing to conspiracy theorists with deep pockets, or are they banking on the need for extreme actions?

No matter what happens next, just consider that should the European Medicines Agency decide to tweak their ‘Test procedures and acceptance criteria for biological products‘ (at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002824.pdf), whatever Vivo had open for sale could be sold at 6000% a mere 10 seconds later. By the way, one final thought in the process of infertility as produced by Ronald D. Moore (TV Series Helix), in light of that document on acceptance criteria. What would be regarded as a purity, an impurity or a contaminant?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as bioterrorism, Brexit, Canada, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), Democrats, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, Frexit, Helix, IBTimes, IKEA, racial tension, Raphael Lemkin, Republicans, Ronald D. Moore, San Francisco, Seattle, Solar-Powered Flat Pack Shelters, South Africa, the Trump effect, USA, Vivos, Wealth exodus, West African Black Rhinoceros, William A. Dembski

April 13, 2016 · 20:53

How pointless can a politician be?

That is the first part in the consideration that we see when we see the latest hype for journalists to ignore the reality of the events as they play. This presented reality was given to us today (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/13/mossack-fonseca-raided-offices-investigators-panama), when we consider the article. The title is only part of the deception we are confronted with. ‘Mossack Fonseca raided as investigators meet in Paris to launch tax probe‘, the first level of entertainment. The next is the quote “under the command of prosecutor Javier Caravallo, who specialises in organised crime and money laundering“, really? What education does this man have? The legality of off shore banking has been made so complex that the bulk of the Harvard professors cannot make head or tails of it. So, this Javier Caravallo, a mere prosecutor can figure it out? Who are the journalists kidding here? Mind you, this is not me trying to bring insult to a prosecutor, and I have no knowledge of Javier Caravallo, or have any issues with this man. Yet, if we can agree that Marky Mark of the British Bank (aka Mark Carney), former Governor of the bank of Canada and current Governor of the Bank of England cannot get his head around the off shore cash ‘storage’ issues, can we all agree that Javier Caravallo is out of his depth (and not by a little)?

We then get the quote “The raid comes after the leak of Mossack Fonseca’s huge database provoked international concern about the offshore industry“, which is a truth, yet there are issues, there are massive questions and they need addressing, yet in that similar way the issue is that the US is involved in this as well (personal observation). The fact that Florida is a growing tax haven and that states such as Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota and Wyoming, in particular, are competing with each other to provide foreigners with the secrecy they crave, which is a quote I got from CBS (at http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/04/06/us-is-emerging-as-a-tax-haven-alongside-switzerland-caymans/), this all is also linked to a Bloomberg article I discussed a few days ago in the article titled ‘Delusional‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/04/07/delusional/). It seems that this loud sabre rattling is more about empowering the Rothschild Empire than it is about Mossack Fonseca. The fact that the Guardian remains silent on that part 50 shades of gold, gives me the impression that this is about chastising towards hypocrisy and not about the news at all, this is not even about decent reporting of the news. Which, in my personal mind, gives me the impression that the editorial levels Katharine Viner has gone to regarding certain players is about to hit a new all-time low (but that could just be me).

Yet we are not done here, because this form of comedy is about to get new players. Australian Commissioner Chris Jordan, who in the Guardian article is introduced as a person with a “global mindset for tackling tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance”. That might be true, it might not. For now we cannot tell because there are elements the press is anxiously avoiding, meaning that the politicians could be aiming to do the same thing.

You see, linked to this is an article from July 2013 (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/14/us-tax-avoidance-google-amazon), where we see “senior officials in Washington have made it known they will not stand for rule changes that narrowly target the activities of some of the nation’s fastest growing multinationals“, 2013? Fastest growing multinationals? I personally think that these are senior ‘spokespeople’ that are in the pockets of large corporations, is that such a stretch? Consider the way that the US tax havens have been avoided by the press at large (apart from Bloomberg and a few CBS articles), consider that all these actions against Mossack Fonseca came from criminal activities, whilst so far not one clear piece of evidence is given that laws have been broken. (a 0.2% infringement does not constitute crime), in addition consider that the largest transgressor of financial ‘morality’ flushed 15 trillion (estimated loss from 2008) into the sewers and we learned this week that one of the principle parties in that event got a mere fine of 5 billion (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/11/goldman-sachs-2008-financial-crisis-mortagage-backed-securities), meaning that the 8 year hardship the American people and Europe at large is paid off with a mere one year of bonuses, which is a true source of hilarity, because it truly gives vision, in my personal view that the US Department of Justice is no longer anything else than a joke.

The final quote is the kicker “The deal, however, includes no criminal sanctions or penalties and is likely to stir additional criticism about the Justice Department’s inability to hold bank executives personally responsible for the financial crisis“, I believe it to be even worse. If any fact ever emerges that the US in any form or size was, as speculated by some cyber specialists, to be behind the Panama Caper, than the transgressions that will massively rule in favour of the Rothschild enterprise will leave the mark that the US government could end up being the most corrupt one in the history of this world, how interesting that the press at large is steering clear of that little titbit.

So what kind of comedy are we seeing unfold?

A slapstick? A piece of presentation where bankers throw pies of money at each other, whilst charging the crowd for every pie, the receiver of the pie pays nothing, the taxpayer pays for the event whilst the cash stuck to the suits of bankers who will charge the government for cleaning the cash and cleaning the suits. A free for all where only the banker ended up smiling and the people paid whilst not getting any entertainment value at all (and a cleaning bill added to their tax papers)

A Farce? The improbable situation where we all look to the left where no crime was committed, we get the quote to ponder ‘A wonderful thing about true wealth is that it just destroys any kind of justice or equality‘, which is shown as the ‘criminals’ involved only pay 0.015% of the damages, the rest is paid for by those watching the damage outside the theatre.

A Satire, where we see presenters mock Mossack Fonseca, whilst they all laughingly carry the bags of ‘evidence’ into Rothschild Trust North America LLC and stating after the delivery that the carried laughter was not guilty of being un-American.

Last there is the Parody, which is exactly like the previous event, but it now just claims that the money shelves in Nevada are just so much prettier than the ones in Panama.

We ignore the Revue, as most politicians can’t sing and in addition, we prefer those who can sing not to do so!

So there are the moments of comedy, the question becomes, which version are we attending here? In this we need to look at Chris Jordan. You see, there is an additional part in this, which we see when we contemplate that this will be chaired by Mark Konza who is the head of the international tax department at the Australian tax office. You see, there is another side in all this. The side I mentioned earlier is also the biggest problem. You see, the Americans are being kept out of all this. This is in part of being confronted with a lame duck inhabitant of a not so circular white building. The quote to mind is “It occurred on the eve of a meeting in Paris of senior officials from the world’s tax authorities, who are intent on analysing the documents as part of new global strategy to crack down on offenders“, which sounds nice, but it is just an empty statement. That view can be fortified when you realise that after the President of the United States wasting the time of any officials in the Hague, we get the fact that after those events (as stated in the Guardian), that “opposition from the US forced the watering down of proposals“, which is what will happen again, but now in another way. You see, in the final moment of presidency, that person tends to be useless (not by choice), as the new president is about to be elected and can undo whatever this president leaves behind. Instead of setting the meetings until AFTER the elections, we see Saber rattling and empty actions. America is part of the problem here and until a strong legislation is placed, the only thing that this tax overhaul will do is play into the hands of Rothschild Wealth management.

Is that where we are heading to?

You see, no matter how we feel about it, we are presented a mere play where the bankers behind the screens are laughing out loud, and they aren’t even hiding that sentiment anymore. As trillions go into trusts and shelters we see no improvements, we see no changes. Until several fundamental changes are set into laws, all actions that happen beforehand are merely wastes of time. It only propagates the false image of the politician, the emptiness of sincerity of the bankers and the injustice of governments supporting these actions. That is the issue at hand and the press publications on a near global scale are ignoring this.

When you read the paper tomorrow, wonder where the US is and why the papers and politicians remain silent on all that.

Finally there is one additional point to make. It was initially mentioned by the Independent last Friday (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/panama-papers-banks-must-declare-links-to-mossack-fonseca-by-next-week-a6972971.html) where we see “Banks must declare links to Mossack Fonseca by next week“, is that not interesting? You see they are not the only players. As stated, there is Rothschild Trust North America LLC and one of the larger players namely Natixis Global Asset Management. Are those mentions not equally important? You see, if this becomes a game of discrimination, what laws can be enforced? Common law has been very clear on that over the decades. It is even a bigger issues in France where we see: “Some French politicians have intervened, demanding that the French government permits US citizens in France the right to hold a bank account that is accorded to every other resident in the country. The national ombudsman, the Défenseur des droits, has also been asked to investigate cases of discrimination by French banks” an issue that played one year ago, which makes me wonder what additional infusion Natixis Global Asset Management received over the last year. In all that, will the tax commission be a comedy, or a mere circus with Chris Jordan and Mark Konza as ringmasters, because at this point, the Americans will stay in the shadows as much as possible.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as bloomberg, CBS, Chris Jordan, Défenseur des droits, Delaware, Florida, Governor of the Bank of Canada, Governor of the Bank of England, Javier Caravallo, Katharine Viner, Mark Carney, Mark Konza, Mossack Fonseca, Natixis Global Asset Management, Nevada, President of the United States, Rothschild, Rothschild Trust North America LLC, South Dakota, the Guardian, US Department of Justice, Wyoming

April 9, 2016 · 18:51

the Other Currency

Sometimes you have to halt a moment. Take a step back and breathe. It is an essential act that I myself have forgotten to take heed on. That part became partially clear in the article the Guardian had yesterday in the TV News section. The title “Paul Mason warns political journalists: ‘You have no real idea what is going on’” is only half of it (at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/08/paul-mason-political-international-journalism-festival-channel-4-news). You see this is linked to several pieces I wrote regarding the (what I believe) to be less than intelligent acts by Alexis Tsipras. So apart from me thinking I was right (read: correct), that piece is an equal mirror for me to look at myself at times, which I am very willing to do.

Linked to these events, not to the articles is a secondary issue I reported on. The date was January 7^th 2015. The article is called ‘As we judge morality‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/07/as-we-judge-morality/). In this article I looked at the accusations made by something that walks around with a dripping snatch. Yes! I am that rude! You see, you do not get to make the false allegation ‘a former masseuse employed by Epstein, that she was forced to have sex with the Duke of York over 10 years ago, as well as the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz‘, you do not get to accuse these people falsely and not get branded for life! This part links into the previous part and the follow up from the not so light allegation I made in the article. I stated: “It is somewhat sickening to see that the press might be the fuel for falsely alleged trials and claims“, even though (much too late) as we see today in the Boston Globe “Two plaintiffs’ lawyers admitted Friday that they made “a mistake” when they accused famed attorney Alan Dershowitz of having sex with their client when she was a minor” a year later. I am uncertain why Attorney and law professor Alan Dershowitz would show such grace against the mindless stupidity of his peers by dropping (read: settle) against Lawyers Paul G. Cassell and Bradley J. Edwards. It is my personal believe that the District Attorney has a mandatory function to keep the quality of law above reproach and high in standards (we do know the standards board is for that). I believe that Attorney General Pam Bondi (our famous Sydney Bondi beach was not named after her), still has a clear duty to look into the matter of the claims made against Alan Dershowitz. Cassell and Edwards wasted the courts time, they gave real damage to the integrity of Alan Dershowitz, as such in light of all I reported then, there is still a case of consideration against the two lawyers. As I personally see it, they tried to strongarm a situation, which had basically nowhere to go but backfire. As such there needs to be a price against the false claimant and against those proceeding on those false claims without due diligence.

I do not think that it changes anything against billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, the slimy little weasel (as I would see him) who got off way too light. Yet, the false statements making him violent now also wrongly diminishes his guilt in all this and it smeared the Duke of York in addition, who is not mentioned in the Boston Globe article. Those false claims had a likely impact on the charity work he has done for decades, so this ‘tactical’ legal act should come with a massive price tag, not only because it took serious resources from the FBI to clearly show that there was contradictory evidence as brought by former director Louis Freeh of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This now reflects to the article that got this all started, namely the press. You see, there is a quote in that article “And I think we need to understand that we [journalists] generally know very little about what is really happening”, which might be a grand gesture by Paul Mason, but I think it is the revelation that he was aware of. We do not know everything and most often we don’t even know a lot, which is something I have always known. The second quote he makes is “If you are one of those poor people who have to report Brussels, you’ll know how difficult it is, even for the guys with the press passes, to get the story. They just get handed effectively a series of semi-leaks and spun information”, which is now at the axial of that what matters. The press has with some regularity not been the informer, they were merely the ignorant patsies ‘revealing’ things spin doctors wanted to get revealed. Now, mind you, the revealed info was often true, it was however a truth misstated in proportion and in wrongful secondary considerations. Which is what I have stated on numerous occasions. Especially when we consider Edward Snowden as well as the Panama Papers. They were, as I see them both hostile takeovers, one in the intelligence industry and one in the financial industry. We will forever debate and speculate on the acts of Edward Snowden. I see him as a traitor, plain and simple. That evidence is clearly seen as his first port of call was Hong Kong. That choice limited him and changed the game for him. I reckon as I speculated before that China saw him for what he was: ‘A joke with delusions of grandeur’. He was not evil, just embossed by the option for greed and ‘sainthood’, just the small detail that treason and sainthood tend to be mutually exclusive when it is done to merely enrich one’s self. This is the one element that gives Julian Assange the benefit of the doubt (and because he technically never committed treason).

When we get back to Edward, we see that he had access to some extent and I reckon he got to see a few documents. Documents involving James Fisher, Mike McConnell and Gary Labovich. I think that they had started a path at that point, merely in the planning stage and if that path worked out a small group at Booz Allan would become rich beyond believe and Edward was missing out. I think he had the opportunity to move forward and he took a chance, the wrong one I might add. You see, there was always an issue with all the data and I still believe that some of the players have been miscommunicating the value of all that data and those ‘documents’ I believe that the initial news around that time (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/former-government-officials-cybersecurity-boom_n_958790.html) in September 2011 and in the Washington Technology (at https://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2011/06/06/Booz-Allen-Top-100-government-contractors.aspx?Page=2) in June 2011. Perhaps the path was not clear at that point, but the idea had taken shape. Last year we saw ‘Booz Allen builds on Vision 2020 strategy with SPARC acquisition‘ (at https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2015/11/02/booz-allen-sparc-deal.aspx) and last month we had the conclusion ‘Booz Allen Hamilton hired to support 5 billion CSTAT contract‘ (at http://www.consultancy.uk/news/3402/booz-allen-hamilton-hired-to-support-5-billion-cstat-contract), a path that took likely a little longer because of the damage Edward Snowden caused. He is no saint and definitely no Ideologist. A failed intervention, that if successful would have given great wealth to Edward Snowden, he gambled and lost a little. Yet in all this the Cyber Security and Information Systems technical area task contract (CSTAT) is nowhere near done. As I see it the cloud might be wonky and leaking data like ‘a sift’, so this is something that needs to be investigated.

This again reflects back to the sometimes ‘ignorant’ press. What they are expecting to receive, and what they really receive are two dimensions, in an age of circulation they are not aligned. Yet getting back to Greece, is also important, you see Paul gives us the part that matters in more than one way: “If Syriza falls, there won’t be a conservative government. It will be replaced by a technocratic government. That’s the plan of the Greek establishment. This technocratic government will mess up. We are really lucky that the fascists want to be black-shirted type hoodlums, because in other countries fascists have developed a brain and reinvented themselves as democratic politicians. We are lucky for the moment that the fascists have no chance of ruling Greece, but that may not be the case forever“, he is only partially right as I personally see it. A technocratic government will do what he expects, but it is more the result of what a technocratic government actually wants. They want profit and non-accountability. Tsipras is right that it is about the people, the Greeks, those who make up the land, but there cannot be non-accountability, which is why I opposed the acts of Tsipras and his rock star associate Yanis Varoufakis. They were wrong, they were never evil. The technocratic wave that comes will be evil, because they will keep alive only those who add to the profit wave, the rest is painted away in spreadsheets. I never signed up for a world like that. In equal measure those who ruined Greece are still not held to account, which I personally see as another failing by Tsipras. They must stand trial and bleed for the hardship they gave the Greek people. There is no other way, the technocrats will take a fee from them and ignore their acts. As the EU falls, it does not fall towards the xenophobes as Varoufakis states, they fall towards the nationalists. I agree that they are not mutually exclusive groups, yet I personally believe that these nationalists are not in fear of non-nationalists, they just prefer nationalists to push their nation forward, something that has not happened in over a decade and non-accountability tends to be weird that way.

So as I look at these elements we cannot ignore Paul Mason who wrote the Guardian article and other too is also linked to #ThisIsACoup (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZsHT2FZkxk). There are elements that I cannot completely agree with, but they are valid views, they look at parts I did not realise/ignored. Yet, they are writing about sides I have been trying to illuminate for over 3 years. So I do not attack ‘How the EU destroyed the Tsipras government‘, I do have a few reservations. That is a good thing, because I never claimed to have all the answers or all the truths. I have a view, based on information, often from valid sources, which is also an issue as we saw on quotes earlier here that the press seems to have been a ‘willing’ propulsion system for spin doctors. This is the issue on many levels, so accepting some truths that might not be in my perception of truth is equally important. So please watch that video on #ThisIsACoup. You will learn a few things I did not know (so I learned a lot too) and parts I never realised. Not because I wanted to be ignorant, but because others would not truly inform its population. Paul Mason also illuminates the issues that 2017 will be bringing. He stated “There is no template for those who had 4% last time are winning the election with 35% this election” which is what the Netherlands are facing with the PVV and what France is still likely to face with Front National. A left template and a right template. Neither is correct and both are essential. If this is truly about national governing it must be about the nation and its population, not in fear, but in enlightenment. In that the Economic industry is feeling the pinch in real ways. Because the changes we see now are becoming the massive fear that Dow Jones, Mossack Fonseca, Rothchild, Natixis and several other financial managers are facing, including the IMF (the Christine Lagarde edition, not the Tom Cruise version).

This need is escalating, especially in light of the revelations last month that due to the actions of DuPont Dordrecht its population has been exposed (for many years) to a large dose of perfluorooctanoic acid (aka C8), even as the Dutch NOS reports “Parliament has decided to take random tests within the population of Dordrecht to look at the consequences of C8, the people are not willing to wait, they want to test their blood as soon as possible. Reimke Hitimana-Willemze of the GGD (Dutch version of NHS) stated that there is no reason for it as there is no treatment this substance will only leave the body over time. She stated ‘Keep your money in your wallet’ (paraphrased from http://nos.nl/artikel/2097987-zorgen-in-dordrecht-om-dupont-fabriek.html)”

This illuminates the massive problem (as I see it). A class-action lawsuit and community settlement had revealed in earlier that Chemours would bear the cost. The fact that Chemours Netherlands B.V. might be seen as a coincidence is one side, the fact that C8 (as shown at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a340/) gives us also links to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension. The report has limitations, the reporter notes that there are issues, but the results are too overwhelming. So as we read that this is from 2013, how irresponsible is the response from Reimke Hitimana-Willemze? This is exactly why the shift is growing larger and larger, notably to either the left or the right, but not towards the balance of the middle. You see, the government players have been too deep in the pockets of big business and as such we see misinformation. Is it not weird that yesterday’s article from NOS states: “It is not easy to show whether high concentrations of C8 lead to diseases, according to Warry van Gelder, director of the Albert Schweitzer-hospital (paraphrased)”, I reckon that a mere search on Google revealed that C8 is real nasty stuff and the settlement that DuPont made in 2013 is additional evidence to start immediate blood tests. Especially if there is a chance that a misinformed Dutch parliament makes a quick settlement offer with DuPont (or likely Chemours Netherlands B.V.) at a mere 2% speculated value of the damages, leaving the Dutch NHS to clean the mess up for this fat chemical cat (or is that Chemical Fat Cat?).

This shows as I see it the dangers of spin doctors, especially as the Dutch NOS makes no mention of the 3,500 lawsuits from Ohio and West-Virginia water (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-07/dupont-jury-reaches-verdict-in-ohio-toxic-water-lawsuit) a mere 6 months ago. How did the NOS miss this?

You see, this part only grows the PVV in stronger measures, making the issues Paul Mason mentioned more and more important, in addition, as large corporations are not held to account the consequences of more and more extreme governing is only accelerated and they will be more extreme in dealing with these issues, which tends to be a bad thing as well.

For me there is a shift, the parts reported up to now and the realisation that the movie is bringing. There is an issue with the press, namely a fight between time and value. The issues shown is that speed is not value, the lack of data depth and data realisation deprives value, the speed of it does not equal it. The press is lacking data comprehension centres, something that can oppose spin doctors, which is not realistic because editors are about speed above all, they dumped the level of quality as they are up against the social media message; hacks that rise as the planetary population is lacking more and more intelligence. It is an unequal race and the hacks seem to be winning which will be the biggest loss of all times when that war is done with.

In that we still have the valid question on how Greece can get back on its feet. Making it a tax haven is not really an option but something needs to be infused on Greece. This battle is not one that will be settled any day soon as the economic coup d’état is still developing. As Mossack Fonseca offices are now getting raided the competitors of Mossack Fonseca are still laughing. Consider that for all intent and purposes there is no evidence that Mossack Fonseca has broken any laws. A police force that refuses to clearly intervene in the known guilty El Salvador drug world is eagerly going into a clearly not guilty and non-transgression set Law Firm. How is that anything but a political step and a posturing to scare its customers towards US non-taxable havens? The article from ABC relies on “all under the radar of local authorities“, yet there is no impression at all at present that the law has been broken. Consider that these are the same members of the comedy capers group that never got to El Burro or other members of the Texis Cartel and they are now going after a firm with no established guilt of any kind?

The question that Paul Mason is directing within me is: “Has the press truly become the joke to be played on those not aware of the rules of the land?“, for one part Paul’s acts at present could indicate that I am wrong, but for every Andrew Jennings and Paul Mason, there are at least a thousand ‘anonymous reporters’ hopping for a break and are eagerly taking quotes from the power players in the land. You only need to see the developments regarding Rothchild in the Financial Times regarding Petro Poroshenko as well as the Quay Quarter development (linked to the Rothchild branch), set at a mere 2 billion to see that I am not (entirely) wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alan Dershowitz, Alexis Tsipras, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Booz Allan Hamilton, Boston Globe, Bradley J. Edwards, C8, Chemours Netherlands B.V., Christine Lagarde, CSTAT, Cyber Security and Information Systems technical area task, Dordrecht, Dow Jones, Duke of York, Edward Snowden, El Burro, El Salvador, FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Financial Times, Front National, Gary Labovich, IMF, James Fisher, Jeffrey Epstein, Louis Freeh, Mike McConnell, Mossack Fonseca, Natixis, NOS, Ohio and West-Virginia water, Panama papers, Paul G. Cassell, Paul Mason, perfluorooctanoic acid, Petro Poroshenko, Prince Edward, PVV, Quay Quarter development, Reimke Hitimana-Willemze, Rothchild, Texis Cartel, ThisIsACoup, Washington Technology, Yanis Varoufakis

April 7, 2016 · 21:58

Delusional

This time the story has a twist, it has sides that some considered and many ignored. This all started when the Guardian started a new story this morning. The title ‘From Snowden to Panama, all hail the power of the press‘, written by Simon Jenkins (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/06/simon-jenkins-power-of-press-panama-papers-investigative-journalists). Even though it is ‘merely’ on the ‘comment is free’ part of the Guardian, this article deserves a separate bit of attention. You see, the start set me off, but it was the content that truly leaves food for thought and it should worry you all!

The title is the first part. You see, I always considered Snowden to be a joke, a scenario (explanation will follow), in addition, the Panama papers are showing a side that should worry a lot of players in this game of what I consider to be misinformation. The interesting part is that these two examples are both relying on data, one from the inside and one (Mossack Fonseca should hope so) from the outside.

Then the writer gives us the following: “Fifa corruption, Snowden and surveillance, Rotherham child abuse, drugged athletes, Stephen Lawrence, WikiLeaks, MPs’ expenses, phone hacking, HSBC, cash for questions, cricket fixing, extraordinary rendition, Olympic bribery, Slater Walker share fixing, DC-10 crashes, thalidomide, corruption at the Met: if power had had its way, none of these stories would have come to light“, now for some cold realities. If there is one voice that requires heralding, than it is the journalist Andrew Jennings. He was the one who truly looked into FIFA, with FIFA’s Dirty Secrets (first aired on 29^th November 2010), this was basically one man. The press at large didn’t do that much. They ‘reported’ on certain matters, but the visibility it should have gotten was below minimum. The Guardian in May 2011 gave us in “Lord Triesman accuses Fifa executives of ‘unethical behaviour'” the mere quote “In retrospect that was not the right view to take and I accept that” seems to push for sympathy. The only part I see is that the press at large ignored seriously investigating FIFA. When it finally did happen, it was a decade too late. When we see the phone hacking reference, we must realise two elements “investigations conducted from 2005 to 2007 appeared to show that the paper’s phone hacking activities were limited to celebrities, politicians and members of the British Royal Family” is the first and the second “the phones of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, relatives of deceased British soldiers, and victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings had also been hacked“. It was public outcry that led to the official investigations, not the press. The Leveson inquiry that started through the announcement of David Cameron on July 6^th 2011 would show a few sides. One of them that the Press Complaints Commission was merely a joke and a bad one at that. It also started Hacked Off, a group investigating the misdeeds of the press. The Leveson inquiry resulted in an advice for a royal charter, something that was massively feared and objected to. We would see responses like “state restriction on press freedom“, yet freedom does not mean unaccountable, which is what the press, for reasons of ambiguity and circulation requires.

The royal charter was from the very first moment bitterly contested by the press, with many of the largest newspapers instead backing Ipso, which by many non-journalists is regarded as a mere joke.

There is little to say about the rest of the initial list, but it is not the last stated about the article. You see, now the light grows on the Panama Papers with “A cloud of stinking dust rises as another wall in the edifice of unaccountability crashes to the ground. No thanks are due to any government or police force, to any minister or regulator“, this statement might sound true, but is it? Let’s look at the list:

Any government. So, what about Panama? That place has its own government!
Police force, they were never part of anything, remember the initial part, Mossack Fonseca has not broken any laws, so how does the police fit here?
Any minister, which is the first real name, hidden in a field of useless names. You see, how are laws made? (at http://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/how-laws-are-made/), that has been the issue from day one for decades, there was a need to truly overhaul taxation laws in pretty much every Commonwealth nation, when was this done? When did the press at large keep a watchful eye on those making laws? Which members of government, which MP, which Lord has attempted to overhaul tax havens and taxation laws? Which bills were created for that? All answers not forthcoming, the press tends to sleep through those moments as they are often regarded as not sexy enough for circulation.
Any regulator. They overlook that things are properly done according to law. As no law was broken, they tend to be useless here.

So the list we see leaves us with one group to blame (because no crime has been reported 3 become non-players), a group that gets blamed all the time, so people do not take heed. What is brilliant is what Simon Jenkins does next. He basically validates all I wrote here (and I have written it before). He writes “Sometimes it relies on a solitary reporter, such Andrew Jennings initially on Olympic and Fifa corruption“, he is correct, especially when he writes “If indeed “everyone in the know knew” that Fifa was corrupt, sportsmen took drugs and contests were fixed, why did it need American attorneys to make arrests, spurred to action by the British press?“, that is a question that has an easy answer as I see it. You see, it is money! In that same light the press has become extremely cautious to (pardon my French) ‘piss off the shareholders and advertisers‘. When it is a player like FIFA, a player with billions, the nervous cat (aka the editor) might not take a step until the transgressor confesses on national news from a public place (like that will ever happen).

So why do I have an issue?

You see, the title has the gem no one talks about.

I have written about Snowden many times, so you can Google that part, but the Panama Papers are new and here to we see a certain lack, one that was equally present with the Snowden claims.

For this we need to take a small step into Logic. You see Mossack Fonseca is not a simple place, I reckon that those working there are amongst the brightest on the planet. Even when Wall Street collapsed and whilst others were looking at Enron. This player with 300,000 companies was making its own waves. Namely waves of continued wealth. Consider those accounts and as these clients are all well above millionaires, consider a fictive amount that they’d pay $10,000 for the privilege of not paying more than 1% taxation. That means that we have a bare minimum of $3 billion in clean revenue and that is the smallest possible number. If they were paid 0.1% of the saved taxation, we get to a number of more than twenty times the amount, not bad for a company with 500 people over 42 nations. We all want a share of that pie and that is exactly what is happening right now (as I see it).

Do you think that you can just walk into systems that secure an annual revenue of billions? You think that hacking is a new invention? No, these people will pay top dollar for 24 hours a day monitoring of every byte they have. This is the puzzling part that every press agency seems to have overlooked (read: ignored). Those files and the massive size of it would have set above average alerts all over the place and this place is anything but absolute top tiered secure. You see, the second part in all this is that new progressive form of entertaining person. In America they refer to him as President of the United States. You see the title ‘Obama calls for international tax reform amid Panama Papers revelations‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/05/justice-department-panama-papers-mossack-fonseca-us-investigation) reads like a mere joke for the following reasons:

– As ‘lame duck’ president you Mr President are on the way out, the elections are already underway and in November a new person comes into the White House, whatever claims you make now, they will never become a reality!

– Let’s take a little gander back to July 2013, where your administration, perhaps even the head honcho of that oval office (read: you) REFUSED to back international taxation laws that would allow tougher calls on digital companies like Google, Amazon and Apple. The quote “Senior officials in Washington have made it known they will not stand for rule changes that narrowly target the activities of some of the nation’s fastest growing multinationals“, which amount to the US needs that money and taxation in other nations is not an option at present.

The last part is shown when we consider the congressional paper ‘Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion‘ called R40623, here we see on page 4 “These tax havens tend to be concentrated in certain areas, including the Caribbean and West Indies and Europe, locations close to large developed countries. There are 50 altogether“, which is wrong, for the simple reason that there are at least 51. America decided not to list the USA, which is shown by Bloomberg (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states), where we see “helping the world’s rich move accounts from places like the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands to Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota“, did you see that one little reference, ‘from’, this is what Mossack Fonseca faces, a move from one place into the USA. Interesting that he who is on the way out seems to skip his own garden when it comes to tax havens. Could the USA be that bankrupt? Or is this another move to force any wealth away from supporting Brexit? You cannot deny the timing that this comes to light just when Greece will be unable to meet another payment, meaning that new arrangements are necessarily. And the Bloomberg article was published months ago!

What is a given is that hacking into Mossack Fonseca should have been nearly impossible, unless you have government assets to use, which we all know is not really an option. In the end I cannot prove how the data got out and Mossack Fonseca will never answer that with clarity, consider that even on a fast internet, it would take 326 hours to download the data that some claim they have from Mossack Fonseca. So either there was another medium, or there are other players in town. These simple elements were easily found, and how long until someone in the office realises that one data job is taking a really long time?

This is why the entire Panama Paper Trail smells and the press at large seems to be avoiding the questions, in this we will soon see the Guardian replace ‘According to Snowden’ replace with ‘According to the Panama Papers we have’ as a new false seal of reliability, so that more ‘dramatic’ revelations can find their way to a page one issue.

How Delusional is that?

That question is equally important, because even though I relied on quotes sources and logic, is my version so much better and so much more reliable? I am not willing to believe myself regarding some of the issues illuminated, so why would you? I personally believe that you can find these same facts easily enough. The levels of logic I employed can be equalled easily enough by an intelligent person, so why did the press not see them and why are they not asking the hard questions?

Is that fair enough?

I leave it with you to consider the facts I presented.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Andrew Jennings, bloomberg, Brexit, David Cameron, FIFA, Hacked off, IPSO, Leveson inquiry, Lord Triesman, Mossack Fonseca, Panama, Panama papers, Simon Jenkins, the Guardian, Wall Street

April 5, 2016 · 20:34

In anticipation of

Yesterday’s news is glowing like only Plutonium can, it touches, it infects and it spreads. The Panama papers are a hot item, radioactive hot. The only place I skip on judging is Iceland. It was the only European nation that achieved a near utopian standard of living, so the impact from the collapse in 2008 will still enrage its population for a very long time to come. If you doubt this than take a look at Oscar winning movie ‘Inside Job’, the one movie that is the biggest eye opener on economies in the history of documentaries. On the other side we get the biggest joke in UK politics, namely Jeremy Corbyn. His quotes on ‘how only Labour will protect Britain’s families’. Perhaps Mr Corbyn will take a look at his party’s history. How Labour in the age of 1997-2010 achieved absolutely NOTHING in changing the wheel of tax havens. So when Jeremy is voicing his thoughts, he should take a long hard look in the mirror. Any defence or deflection is pointless and absent of values. Both sides have not done their job in stopping tax shelters.

Most important is that no laws seem to have been broken. Yes, we now see that there are a few issues, yet when we see the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/mossack-fonsecas-response-to-the-panama-papers), we see: “Finally, the instances you cite in your reporting represent a fraction – less than 1% – of the approximately 300,000 companies that Mossack Fonseca has incorporated in its over 40 years in operation“, that is the actual case in all this. A system that is allegedly 99% correct and above levels, is now under scrutiny, through no less than criminal acts. Now the weirdest case in statistical history. We are looking at 300,000 cases. In the dataset that is well over 2.5 terabyte we see a fact evolving that is now soon becoming an interesting side.

Here begins a level of speculation that you must comprehend, there is little evidence, only suspicions. I hereby warn the reader to not take what follows as given!

One source (fusion) is giving us: “So far, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has only been able to identify 211 people with U.S. addresses who own companies in the data (not all of whom we’ve been able to investigate yet). We don’t know if those 211 people are necessarily U.S. citizens”

Metro gave us this quote: “But weirdly, considering it’s the world’s largest economy, there was nobody from the USA. Is that because America is a beacon of transparent business dealings?“, the second quote is “Stefan Plöchinger, digital editor of German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung which obtained the leaks, shot out this teaser earlier today, saying: ‘Wait. Just look at what’s coming…’” (at http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/04/why-are-there-no-us-people-in-the-panama-papers-5794114).

One side states that more is coming, yet even under these properties even the term ‘there is more to come‘ becomes a highly suspicious consideration.

Now we get to the speculative side. You see, yesterday I made mention on the Libor scandal, yet I did not mention the part I speculated on initially (on April 1^st 2013), in an article titled ‘60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/04/01/60-confiscated-and-counting-in-cyprus/), at that time I wrote: “On 30^th November 2010 Jullian Assange revealed that the next target of his whistle-blowing website will be a major U.S. bank. The same date a red notice was issued by Interpol. It was around that time that the hunt for Assange intensified by a lot. Perhaps the one bank was just the beginning? If we look back at the issues we know now, then there is a chance that someone made mention of the LIBOR percentage tweaking issue. If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and USA combined) then that difference would be $112T.

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

It was my speculation that Libor was not limited to the UK. It was my speculation that the US, as it was in such deep debt, that it started to manipulate the total value of trade, creating an 11.2 trillion dollar buffer. Here the danger for them was that the UK could illuminate that and that would have made the US option impossible and it would go bankrupt overnight (I still want that finder’s fee!). It was a speculation, yet founded on some data I saw, the data implies (cannot confirm or prove this), that packages were reset so that they would not falter, even though collapsed mortgages were added to them. See it as a leave one extra in. A repackaged deal where 70% had not yet collapsed sold at bargain price.

So how does this connect to the Panama papers?

Ask yourself a simple question, a firm like Mossack Fonesca would have extensive protection, firewalls and other shapes of protection. When you represent 300,000 firms worth trillions, only an idiot would rely on a laptop running on Windows 98 (a mere exaggeration). These people are not idiots, they are a lot brighter than I ever could be. This now raises the question how that much data got out. This raises the question, is this truly just about tax havens, or is this about a clear message from the US. The message is ‘Do not leave the EU, or else!‘ a message aimed at the UK and at France. Germany is willing to give aid, because for the most Germany does not want anyone to leave the EU. I personally see this step as a desperate act form large players who would not accept any responsibility from acts of immense stupidity. A path that evolved clearly due to inaction regarding Greece.

The fact that US people are not (yet) mentioned is because the US needs its wealthy with extreme desperate shortages. A nation (the USA), who is at present perhaps so close to bankruptcy that it will take desperate acts. So is the USA behind the hack on Mossack Fonesca? There will never be any clear evidence on that. There is no way to prove this one way or another, this is all clear speculation from my side.

Yet, is this so far-fetched? I personally do not think so, especially when we consider the timing. So as the UK tax havens might undergo slimming down, we could suddenly see another batch of US deregulations set for the creation of taxation, wealth building and retrenching. So will this happen? Is my speculation way too wild? I am not certain, you see, even I question myself. I would have had a lot less faith in all this if we would have seen the ‘revelation’ of Americans. That absence is what fuels certain paths of speculation. When we consider the amount of bonuses that many bankers in the US legally got away with gives weight to all this, in a group of 300K people and this group 0.01% currently American is too low and too unbelievable at present. There is of course all the chance that those names have been held back, time will tell!

So beyond the speculation we see the facts, because the facts matter. And the press is massively ignoring the impact that Brexit has, not just on the EU and their Euro, but it is the value of the US Dollar that is equally hit when that currency gets hit with the impact the Euro would expected to receive. President Obama’s nightmare has officially begun, because the impact is likely to impact the US dollar before he stops being an elected official. So tactically there is not the question of Mossack Fonseca and the tax shelters/havens. A tactical question that Bloomberg answered on January 27^th 2016 (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states) where we see ‘Moving money out of the usual offshore secrecy havens and into the U.S. is a brisk new business‘, it is followed with the quote “It is now moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt“, so ask yourself the following question: ‘Are the Panama papers with the details from Mossack Fonseca a mere hack, or is this a coup d’état by big players like Rothschild moving money into the US, forcing the wealth and the powerful in Europe to face the danger that Brexit will soon impact their money and that must not be allowed’.

This last tactic is again speculation, but it is a tactical one, and it is supported by some facts. In that regard this tactic is old, hundreds of years old, because it was Niccolo Machiavelli who stated: “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception”

I wonder what ‘revelations’ the Panama papers will bring, more important the parts the press will trivialise into the trashcan?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Brexit, Cyprus, ICIJ, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Jeremy Corbyn, Julian Assange, Labour, LIBOR, Mossack Fonseca, Niccolo Machiavelli, Panama papers, President Obama, Rothschild, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Stefan Plöchinger, the Guardian, UK, US

April 4, 2016 · 21:21

Working for a new boss

This morning starts off with an entirely different wave of events. Brexit is turning out to the two teams misrepresenting issues as much as possible, many of these representations are about scaremongering. The NHS is going on and on and on and other views are given. In both cases I agree with some parts, I disagree with loads of it (from my point of view with decent evidence). Yet all this we would have overlooked almost half a dozen articles. The story is only the smallest part of it. What is massively interesting that there is for a chosen few a job available! It is not glamorous, you will be frowned upon, but consider a job that will get you a 7 figure income (after a while), a decent house, possible tropical views a few times a year. In this day and age? Who would not accept that? Perhaps the single ideological man or woman, but that leaves a few million people, all ready to accept a position with the glamorous firm of Mossack Fonseca, a panama based law firm, with services on a global scale. Clients like Russian President Vladimir Putin (allegedly). They operate in tax havens including Switzerland, Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands, and in the British crown dependencies Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. I would love a nice job on Guernsey, a nice house, retirement at some point. I am a Trade Marks attorney, one that would love to get an additional degree in finance if that gives me a good job with Mossack Fonseca, is that not what you saw?

The first article ‘What are the Panama Papers? A guide to the biggest leak in history‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers), assisting the rich and famous store their wealth in tax havens. You see, this is all legal, this is not FIFA screwing its soccer fans over breaking ethical boundaries. This is all thankful to a multitude of short-sighted politicians (or really clever ones depending on your point of view) who enabled options in their tax homes. The article ‘used lawfully to anonymously hold property and bank accounts, these companies were registered in a range of tax havens and this map shows the most popular locations among its clients. The British Virgin Islands held more than 100,000 companies‘, so you would not be breaking the law. You just have to accept that some people pay (a lot) less taxation. After 30 year I have clearly seen and learned that living morally correct will get you a one bedroom apartment in the suburbs, a place you will not be able to pay off before you die. So as morality is not a legal requirement, as all this work is perfectly legal, why not?

This is all coming to light because of a leak, someone (as stated by the Guardian) got a hold of 2.6 terabytes of data. The quote is literally “There are 11.5m documents and 2.6 terabytes of information drawn from Mossack Fonseca’s internal database“, which implies that the facts were discovered through criminal activities. This means that Mossack Fonseca might have a case against those perpetrators. Another interesting quote is “Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so“, so why not become a service provider here?

On the other side there is the quote “In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies“, which is equally valid. Mossack Fonseca stated: “it complies with anti-money-laundering laws and carries out thorough due diligence on all its clients. It says it regrets any misuse of its services and tries actively to prevent it. The firm says it cannot be blamed for failings by intermediaries, who include banks, law firms and accountants“, this gives us another side too. When we consider banks we can consider Barclays (Libor 2012), Marcus Agius, former chairman of Barclays, resigned from his position over it. He’s sitting pretty being amongst others on the board of the BBC. Now, there is no evidence that he was directly involved, but it happened under his nose (so to speak), with a few exceptions most got out with their bonus intact and this was a legal transgression, so why would anyone not want to work for Mossack Fonseca, who is not breaking any laws?

When we consider law firms we should consider the news form the Independent in 2013 where we see: “The Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) knew six years ago that law firms, telecoms giants and insurance were hiring private investigators to break the law and further their commercial interests, the report reveals, yet the agency did next to nothing to disrupt the unlawful trade” (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-other-hacking-scandal-suppressed-report-reveals-that-law-firms-telecoms-giants-and-insurance-8669148.html) and when we see the word ‘accountant’ I think Tesco and Pricewaterhouse Coopers. For example the quote I used “Tesco paid PwC £10.4m in the last financial year – plus another £3.6m for other consultancy work“ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/09/30/thriving-team-tesco/) in the article ‘Thriving Team Tesco?‘, where again the case of wrongdoing should be regarded as more likely than not, so why would we not consider perfectly legal work at Mossack Fonseca?

Let’s not forget that the governments on a global scale are enabling this to get some tax revenue. Consider that the British Virgin Islands have 100,000 companies, without them, how much taxation would have been collected? It is a mere case of need and availability.

For example, a fictive person goes to His Excellency John Duncan and states: “Sir, if you offer us a favourable tax option, the option would be open to bring industry and taxable revenue in access of $1,000,000,000. Would you be willing to consider a low taxation plan?” to this the governor would respond “My dear man, we have no profit tax and no corporation tax!”

So how long until the big boys move a few billion to a place like that?

We seem to find time to worry about ethical issues, when the installed governments in Europe have yet to show a mere accountable bone in their bodies for overspending trillions. We seem to be ignoring the obvious. Even if this was illegal, how many banker have gone to prison from 2004 onwards? This is not illegal, this is a mere application of true globalisation. In addition, consider that offshore companies and offshore trusts are in most cases taken out of the view of taxation to begin with, so why not employ this option?

You see, the part that is in the middle of all this is not answered, it is skated around. No one seems to care on HOW the information was gotten at. The quote “2.6 terabytes of information drawn from Mossack Fonseca’s internal database” implies hacking. This does not mean that it could not have been facilitated by internal sources. Such an amount of data does not just easily download, so either someone got access and mirrored a drive, which implies that the server was accessible, what is more likely (read: speculation), is that this is one of the first cloud hacks. To have such a large environment, so global gives the option that data was in the cloud and someone was able to access it. This morning IT Pro had the following quote (at http://www.itpro.co.uk/data-leakage/26293/panama-papers-leaked-through-server-hack-1). “it had opened an investigation after discovering that “unfortunately” it had suffered “an attack on its email server” and that it is taking “all necessary measures to prevent this from happening again“, which could be the case. My issue here is that from a server, getting access to that much data should either be noticed (bandwidth), or it was internal (read: facilitated). When we consider the e-mail data overall, there is nothing that raises flags. Oh yes, there is! That much data with a truckload of attachments gives food for thought. Even as we consider no criminal acts have been undertaken, one would try to secure that much data. Perhaps this was done, but how was so much data gained?

In my view, encrypted UNIX servers would have required massive amounts of time to access and a good IT team always keeps one eye on their servers. Fortune quoted “Mossack Fonseca is calling the 11.5 million leaked documents a “limited” breach” (at http://fortune.com/2016/04/04/panama-papers-law-firm/), which is also likely, yet in all that if that was limited, yet fortune gives us one quote the Guardian would be unlikely to state “It appears that you have had unauthorized access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company and have presented and interpreted them out of context“, now that part will be close to impossible to prove, because the Guardian clearly stated “Using offshore structures is entirely legal”

No matter how this plays out, it seems to me that politicians on a global scale will start playing their ‘hypocrisy card’. Which is another laughing matter altogether. I cannot predict how this will officially play out, but they do have a website at http://www.mossfon.com/ and they are also in Trade Marks, so I should see what my options are. For you the reader, especially those with a degree in wealth management. I suggest you send your resume to:

The MF Group
54th Street, Marbella
Panama, Rep. of Panama

You could also go to web page: http://www.mossfon.com/about_service/careers/, if you want to post your resume online!

Let’s not forget, these people have not broken any laws (at present).

Have a fun day and dream of a life without debt in a place you could never have afforded in any other legal way.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Barclays, BBC, Brexit, British Virgin Islands, IT Pro, John Duncan, LIBOR, Marcus Agius, Mossack Fonseca, NHS, offshore companies, offshore trusts, President Vladimir Putin, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Serious Organised Crime Agency, Soca, Tax havens, Tesco, the Guardian, The Independent

April 3, 2016 · 14:10

The Medic and the Medici

There are several issues exploding, yes, they are literally exploding in the faces of people all around us, especially in the UK. The first event is ‘Leaked Brexit email claims David Cameron has ‘starved’ NHS‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/01/senior-tories-brexit-vote-leave-attacks-david-cameron-letter-nhs-staff).

This article gives us the following quotes: “David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt must accept responsibility for this – they have starved the NHS of necessary funding for too long.” The claim is more than outlandish, it is for all intent and purposes a clear fabrication. So who is Cleo Watson? What evidence has she produced? These two elements are important. Apart from her short time with the Vote Leave campaign, she is an unknown. This letter is also a clear visible act where both Michael Gove and Boris Johnson need to question their support for this group. Michael Gove gave his reasons clearly and well written in the Independent. Boris Johnson has his business and governing mental experience regarding the link between the UK and the European Union. I am on the fence, yet to some extent I am leaning more and more heavily towards Brexit. Yet I want to do this on the facts that matter, people need to vote based on actual facts. Cleo Watson is just making a joke everyone needs to ignore. This we see when we take the following facts into account:

#1. 2011, NHS pulls the plug on its £11bn IT system, a system abandoned after 9 years of spending and no result.

#2. 2013, The NHS says it has lost millions of pounds in the last year because of the number of patients failing to turn up for appointments.

#3. 2015, The NHS saw the worst performance by A&E departments since records began in 2010, with only 91.4% of patients being seen within the four hour target time.

#4. 2016, Nurse staffing levels, missed vital signs observations and mortality in hospital wards: modelling the consequences and costs of variations in nurse staffing and skill mix.

Now, this is not about laying blame with the NHS, yet serious questions need to be asked. You see, only the arms industry has at times the luxury to blow away 11 billion and not feel the consequences. It’s pretty much the operation expenses of the Patriot Missile system in the US. Oh wait, the UK cannot afford that system, so it selected the Aster which gives more bang for the buck (50 missiles more bang for the buck). It had issues after that in both quality and availability. In addition, a study to be completed in 2017 is costing the NHS half a million.

There are other issues that play, they are all with the NHS; the issue is that these things just happen. Any machine has cogs that aren’t pulling their weight, they are there in case something else goes wrong, or they are in support, or even just idle because the system requires them to be. The response in the Guardian was also direct: “A senior source at the Department of Health hit back by claiming the government had provided an additional £10bn for the NHS and said that “every Conservative MP stood on a manifesto to deliver this package”. They added: “So we expect every Conservative MP to have absolutely nothing to do with this letter”“, which for the moment might sound very correct, but within all this a serious question remains. How could any project go this far out of bounds? In a time when the NHS is not smothered to death, but only a step away from drowning in costs and costings, we must demand a firm hold on expenses. Yet, this goes a lot deeper than just expenses, you see in all this, especially in regards to the squandered £11bn, questions must be asked of the political side, did they interfere, was there interference at all and how did that explode costs? That is an equally important question in this race for comprehension.

So as we see one part nullified from Vote Leave. We are not done, not by a longshot. You see, these matters are tried again and again. This becomes more outspoken when we see ‘Female doctors may be forced to quit over new contract, experts say‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/01/female-doctors-new-contract-medical-royal-colleges). Now, let’s be fair. There was always a small chance that this was the Guardian entering its own April fool’s day article of the year. Yet that part can be ignored when we read: “The MWF is worried that will force female doctors who are mothers to try and find childcare at those times. The new contract could breach junior doctors’ right to a family life under the Human Rights Act“. In addition there is “Dr Roshana Mehdian, one of the leaders of the junior doctors’ campaign against the contract, criticised the DH for saying that women should make “informal childcare arrangements” if they are affected by having to work more antisocial hours“. When we look against “This is ludicrous in the 21st century when childcare costs are spiralling and access to out-of-hours childcare is limited. This discriminates against women, single parents and working couples“, we must ask ourselves ‘Are these doctors on drugs and please can we get some of them?’

You see, there is no denying that the MD’s in this world work really ungodly hours. I do not think it is fair, yet the current system does not have that much margin to work with. In addition, a personal view is that any woman who now goes into medicine, who also wants to be a mother needs to realise that she can do one or the other, not both. Those in the medical and legal industry tend to work an easy 50-60 hours a week. Unless those women have chosen to marry a househusband, that option is gone! All this bickering and especially Dr Roshana Mehdian who not unjustly stated “This is ludicrous” is forgetting that in the old days the man worked, the woman stayed at home. Now, if we accept (and I do), that someone has to be with the kids (to some extent), in an age where a man and a woman can make the same fortune, she must also realise that if she is making the fortune, she needs to realise that Mr Mehdian might be expected to be at home to raise the kids. In a bad analogy I would rephrase this into, you can’t be a hooker and expect to be given the options of a virgin. One excludes the other. And in an age of spiralling childcare costs, the cost of living went up for all. This is not about fairness, this is about reality and realism. Because only labour seems to feed the public the idea that all can have a job, free education is a given and childcare is priced under the tax deduction act, those who believe will not have a life, not have a family and they will not have any money left.

The article calls for another two quotes that have relevance and importance. The first is “The DH analysis, published on Thursday, has intensified the long-running dispute between the profession and ministers over the contract. There is particular unease about its statement that “while there are features of the new contract that impact disproportionately on women, of which some we expect to be advantageous and others disadvantageous, we do not consider that this would amount to indirect discrimination as the impacts can be comfortably justified”“, the second is: “This contract is a huge step forward for achieving fairness for all trainee doctors”, a spokeswoman said. “For the first time, junior doctors will be paid and rewarded solely on the basis of their own hard work and achievement. That is ultimately what employers and the BMA they want and everyone deserves: a level playing field.”

You see, these might seem like two sides of the same coin, but I reckon they are not and this is a lot more of an issue that some might realise. You see, the Guardian and the Independent are both on the same side when we see “the measures would discriminate against single women“, I disagree! From my point of view, being a single parent and in law or medicine is massively stupid and selfish. It is clearly given at the beginning of your career, already in University for some that the immense amount of hours made will equally mean that being a parent (in any other way than the old way is the real story that will not be a reality). I reckon that any person becoming a parent whilst working 50+ hours a week is a bad parent and should not be allowed to be a parent. You can’t have it all and for the most, most of the population knows this to be a truth. Is it possible down the track? That remains to be seen, there is a clarity that unless the economy does not drastically improve the family life for many will be a mere concept that will never become a reality to many couples. Nourishing any act in that direction is self-delusional.

Is it fair?

Of course it is not, but the current economy is not about fairness, in all fairness the previous administrations should not have pushed this government with a 14 hundred billion pound debt, but that happened and until now, no serious acts have been performed to rein in spending and to reign in debt, which is part of all this as well. The full contract can be found at http://www.nhsemployers.org/case-studies-and-resources/2016/03/junior-doctors-terms-and-conditions-of-service. I am not going to bore you with the contract as such, because some of the elements discussed require a person much more versed in contracts than I am. Yet, I feel that it is imperative to mention: “The work schedule for a doctor on a general practice training programme working in a general practice setting should reflect the 2012 COGPED guidance or any successor document on the session split during the average 40-hour week that comprise a minimum full-time contract. Any additional hours of work above 40 must be included in the doctor’s work schedule and linked through to the curriculum, as per those for doctors in hospital settings“, which we see on page 28. This part has a reference to “The doctor’s actual total ‘new contract’ pay at appointment to the first post and subsequently at appointment to each new post under these TCS will be calculated as per the provisions of Schedule 2 of these TCS” I cannot state whether this is fair or unfair. Yet there is one given, there is no mention of gender here. I have seen how Emma Watson gave her speech at the UN (I am completely in support of this), yet when we see equality, for me it means on all fronts. This also implies that you do not get to have a career and be a mother. You see, in that same view, nearly every man worked every day (and sometimes nights) and did not get to be a father, they merely became the provider of the family. We have to accept that, because the rent and the food must be paid for, in that same light women will have to face that too. So, they do not get to complain that as a single mother there are debilitations. So is this what the Department of Health claims to be, a ‘level playing field’, or is there another side? You see, Dr Roshana Mehdian did not convince me of her side with: ‘when childcare costs are spiralling and access to out-of-hours childcare is limited’, in that same light, it took two to tango, so why is the child not with the father? If there is true gender equality that question is fair and valid. Of course, reality tends to be not in equal measure and we would accept that, but in all this when we see the pressures in the medical profession, it makes sense that having an equal weight responsibility means that in the medical and legal profession, having a child will impact your value on that market, merely because your head was not in the game, for 15 hours it was with your own bundle of joy. That premise is valid, it will make massive sense for some to start a family, but in equal measure it means that it will either cost you a family or a career. We have come to the stage that both is no longer an option, especially as a single parent. From my personal viewpoint, raising a child is a career all in itself. Now answer the following question honestly: “How can you have two careers and do right by both?”

An answer not easily given, because it is not an easy question!

What is a matter of concern is that the political parties (on both isles) have taken certain stances, both are debatable and both have had little options and the shortage that was strangled upon these parties is equally a problem. By trying to maintain a medical elite in the UK, the balance shifted. You see, when we consider the Social structure within the United Kingdom as it was, where the upper class included the barristers, judges, dentists and doctors, yet were also in the middle class. We see a shift after WW2, so those who were in the high field tried to keep themselves and their family in that higher echelon, therefor rejecting fiercely a foreign infusion of highly needed talented workforce. After WW2 this became a shift towards a services-dominated economy with additional mass immigration. The medical profession, due to unrealistic standards saw their workforce diminish over the last 10 years giving us the issues we see nowadays. Consider the following response “I wrote my exam on 12 Dec 2015 and got my result 24 Dec 2015. I promptly went online and started the application and 2 days later I got the Pearson Vue testing reference number and booked and paid $280 for the computer based Test of Competency. I could have sat this next week but I chose to sit it on 2 Feb to give myself more time to practise as I can’t afford to fail. So far the process has been really smooth and quick“, another voice was a lot less positive, but there could have been a clear issue of timing involved. Overall the issue remains that by making a transfer of knowledge so hard, especially as some applicants have degrees in Commonwealth nations, it seems to me that some players are trying to dampen the influx of foreign talent, which is just my personal view in all this.

This path could have been smoothened out by the politicians a long time ago, but it seems that schooling and re-schooling nurses does not sound as sexy as a new innovative IT system (which didn’t work anyway). Last I get to that list of 4. The first one is old news now, but 11 billion is a lot to lose and it has to come from somewhere. The second one is one that can be dealt with. If the patient misses two appointments, they can either pay a penalty fee for not cancelling in time. Cancelling an appointment is just a phone call away. If you forgot it, there is a fair assumption that there was not a pressing medical need (I know the ice of that statement is very thin). In all this we must realise that doctors work ungodly hours, so steering clear from giving them additional pressures seems to be a given first. A task at which, as I personally see it, Jeremy Hunt failed miserably at present. The third in my list is the one I would give A&E a pass for. My reasoning is that the skewed scale that A&E works with has not been properly adjusted for growth in patients and stagnating staff numbers. We get these numbers from http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06964.pdf, where we can see in the introduction and the summary that the title ‘Accident and Emergency Statistics‘ is ever so slightly misleading. I wonder what Carl Baker had in mind with this paper and what purpose it serves. It seems to ‘focus’ on the +4 hour people way too much. The one summary number that does matter is ‘There were 4.0 million emergency admissions to hospital via A&E in 2014/15 – up 4.8% on the previous year’, which only paints a partial picture. You see, ‘Chart 2: Annual A&E attendance, England, 2004-2015‘ seems to tell the story, but other ways could have been more explicit to deal with the issue. Over a period of 10 years, the attendance of the minor injury units nearly doubled. Yes it doubled! The major injury unit also rose, but not by a large part, although, from just over 13 million to close to 15 million is still a growth that is not to be ignored. This report ‘writes it off’ as a mere 10%, which still amounts to 1.4 million additions. Yet in all this staffing levels are not addressed at all, leaving this ‘work’ with some uneasy questions. What I like the most is the disclaimer at the end. “This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice”

So how does staffing levels in answer to 4 hour waiting times not assist? From this I must question what the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP had in mind with this writing? From my point of view, a bad paper does not make the NHS look bad, it makes the Secretary of State for Health look bad not less good than he should look, especially as he should be fighting for the plight of the members of the Department of health, a side I have yet to see at present. He has been called a lot worse by many, it seems unproductive to go that way. What is matter of urgency is the fact that the Prime minister needs to ascertain if Mr Hunt is the right person in the right place and if not, he needs to get someone there that will take the side of the doctors and fast, because at present they do have the power to let it all collapse, and woe be onto the administration that is governing when that happens.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Boris Johnson, Carl Baker, Cleo Watson, COGPED, David Cameron, Department of Health, Dr Roshana Mehdian, Emma Watson, Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, NHS, UK

March 26, 2016 · 23:03

How to see ‘facts’

Brexit is one of the shiniest examples on how information is twisted and turned into many ways, especially ways to either scare people or just knowingly and willingly misrepresent the facts (as I see it). In the first degree there is the press. I think that they are on a large scale doing the deeds that those who support them are requesting them to do.

This sounds ‘misleading’, so let me explain. When the press goes on quoting sources and not investigating sources, we need to start questioning the ‘facts’ that they represent and quote. I think that the press is not doing their utmost to inform their readers and the public at large. I am not talking about the Daily Mail, the Mirror or some Murdoch media outlet. No, I am referring to places like the Guardian, the Independent and even the Times, although in the last case, I have never read it (because only subscribers get access to their website articles (the ones that matter at least). We can wonder how far the press needs to go, yet the answer as I see it should be ‘A lot further than they are currently going‘.

It is up to you to decide whether my subjective version is accurate or not (never take anyone’s word for granted!)

1. The Guardian, ‘French minister: Brexit would threaten Calais border arrangement‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/david-cameron-calais-refugee-crisis-francois-holland).

Background: Regional president Xavier Bertrand, member of the Republicans, headed by Nicolas Sarkozy. This is important because Nicolas Sarkozy is against segregation from the EU and also very much against Brexit. When was the last time anyone going against party ruling would have been allowed to continue? Now that Sarkozy is not in power, they are all about getting elected!

The quote: “Xavier Bertrand, the recently re-elected president of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie region, has repeatedly said the Le Touquet agreement would be torn up if Britain left the EU. He said: “If Britain leaves Europe, right away the border will leave Calais and go to Dover. We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if it’s no longer in the European Union”“. The part that is so ludicrous is the issue that if this falls away, everyone will get checked before leaving the train, meaning that the train could stop halfway and until every person is checked, there will not be any continuation, in the second, if illegals are boarding the train, it would mean that France already has a problem, which means that this rash statement will make matters worse for France when Frexit becomes a fact because It would need to deal with a non-existing Le Touquet agreement, meaning that Belgium in equal measure will not be performing checks. This means that the flow from the Netherlands and Belgium towards France could possibly triple, especially in Lille. Consider that Lille has well over 20,000 industry/services. Do you have any idea what level of pressure would fall upon Lille? And that is just the registered part.

The Quote: “France’s economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, told the Financial Times that the Le Touquet agreement – a bilateral relationship between the UK and France – would be threatened by a British withdrawal from the EU“, which is partially a repetition from the first quote, but by Emmanuel Macron, the current Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industry in France. He states ‘threatened‘ not ‘withdrawn‘. So when in office you need to be ‘diplomatic’. Yet in all this, there is actually no reason to get there. You see, this is an agreement between nations, in all this it can remain an agreement within nations. Let’s not forget that the checks remain the same and the United Kingdom was never a part of Schengen. There is off course an impact for EU citizens, yet in all this, the United Kingdom would soon be forced to create an almost identical situation that Australia currently has. There would be every reason for the UK to adopt the Australian 457 visa situation. As its own infrastructure would soon after Brexit be massively damaged by the lack of skilled persons. This would include most of the western European nations (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Italy).

Yet, the issue of the Le Touquet agreement will be an issue, just not the one that Xavier Bertrand states for the mere reason that France would lose a lot more soon thereafter.

2. The Independent, ‘Brexit would only bring ‘low’ cost to British national security, says former head of MI6‘ (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-would-only-bring-low-cost-to-british-national-security-says-former-head-of-mi6-a6948841.html)

Background: Sir Richard Dearlove, former El Jefe of MI6 (from August 1999 until May 2004), he was replaced by John Scarlett, who endorsed the government’s dossier on Iraqi weapons, including the controversial claim that some weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes (Source: CNN). Any rumour about Iraq ending his career seems far-fetched as Sir Richard Dearlove completed a 5 year tour, like several before him and all those who followed him. We can only argue (well, actually I can) that the Directors seat at £169,999 seems rather underpaid when you consider that you have to clean up the mess Labour made in its ignorance. The Chilcot Inquiry being the evidence here. So it was a little bit about Iraq! More important, the inquiry that ran from 24^th November 2009 until 2^nd February 2011, is currently being completed as parts were not to be published for several reasons. Its publication is expected to happen on April 16^th 2016.

The quote: “Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights—remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque—and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the EU”

The Quote: “Britain is Europe’s leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return… If a security source in Germany learns that a terrorist attack is being planned in London, Germany’s domestic intelligence service is certainly not going to withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not an EU member“.

There are a few items here that matter. Even though the HRA could fall over, there are additional facts that would hinder extradition of a person like Abu Hamza. For one there was the case of cleric Abu Qatada, which took forever. I mentioned him in an earlier blog. I discussed this in March 2013 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/03/10/humanitarian-law-v-national-security/) ‘Humanitarian Law v National security‘, you see on 16^th December 2004 the Law Lords ruled that Section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was an issue, which is now replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which is currently repealed. So, my issue here is that, as far as I can tell, the issue will remain to some extent. Yes, I agree with Sir Richard that immigration will gain control, yet at present there are a few loopholes that might not result in solving new issues from becoming a political hot potato (also known as ‘an issue not resolved’) that will give rise to new cases. In the second quote, I feel a few levels of doubt regarding the statement ‘Britain is Europe’s leader in intelligence and security matters‘. Yes the UK might give more than it receives, yet overall certain intelligence matters will dwindle as the data hub that matter is not the UK (they are in third position), it is number 2 (Netherlands) and the current leader (Germany) that are the data titans in Europe, with additional growth due to a Google data centre currently in development somewhere north or northwest of Amsterdam (latest info is that its completion is in 2017). Which would grow the Dutch data stream even further, which could grow to a speculated estimation of 6.5Tb/sec. Sir Richard knows that it is not about the amount of data, but it is about the quality of data. Yet in all this, there might be a consequence of Brexit. It is possible that access to certain data streams might not be forthcoming. Meaning that GCHQ would need to develop other algorithms to counter the lack of data (read: incomplete data). Sir Richard is correct that information would not be withheld, but the exchange of data would be less smooth and time would be lost, all parties seem to agree on that. Yet in all this, Dutch paper NRC gave us in 2013 “Achter de schermen werkt Bertholee hard aan de invulling van de bezuiniging uit het regeerakkoord: 70 miljoen tot en met 2016. Daar is kort daarna nog eens 11 miljoen bijgekomen” {paraphrased: behind the screens director Bertholee (AIVD, the Dutch version of MI5), is working hard to work out on how to implement the agreed cutbacks of 70 million through to 2016, which was shortly thereafter raised by 11 million}. So as the Dutch intelligence needs to cut back on 81 million, Dutch internet nodes will soon thereafter give passage to 40% more data. Even if the bulk of it is ‘Softly Pasting Additional Marketing‘, the intelligence ramification will be larger than expected, there is no way of telling the impact of Brexit, yet the response of Sir Richard, which was “Leaving the EU would bring only a “low” cost to Britain in terms of national security“, is not exactly a given, there is, in his defence, too many unknown factors at present.

So how did we look at facts? How about the speculations we read (in the second case). Well, they are not speculations. I added sources (all except one) and I extrapolated information for half a dozen sources. I have the advantage of languages, something plenty of journalists are lacking. My issue is less with the Independent and only slightly more with the Guardian. I believe that they should have dug deeper. They did mention the facts but the fact that Regional president Xavier Bertrand is not an elected official, he was Mayor of Saint-Quentin (was being the operative word), yet as the recently re-elected president of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie region, which was in 2010 and he is about to be replaced by Marine Le Pen (extremely likely), whilst as Mayor he was replaced by Frédérique Macarez in January 2016. So he can claim whatever he wants. Free bowls at the wicket and no official fact to be questioned. Clean given facts that were known before the article came to print. So why were these influential facts not given?

There are more articles in pretty much most papers (excluding the Times at present), which gives us the issue, because the papers should have informed us slightly better. I personally see it as cause and effect. Why a person makes that statement is one, but the position he/she is in is equally important. I have stated before again and again, never go from one source; not even me as a source. Use the information you get and form an opinion, because when the vote is due, whatever you select is on yourself, not on others. Being the non-winner is one thing, ‘I should have voted for the others’ when ‘your choice’ makes it would qualify you the voter as an idiot. Make sure you know what you select and why you make the selection.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada, AIVD, Anti-terrorism, Belgium, Brexit, Chilcot Inquiry, CNN, Crime and Security Act 2001, director Bertholee, Emmanuel Macron, Frédérique Macarez, Frexit, HRA, Human Rights Act, John Scarlett, Le Touquet agreement, Lille, Marine Le Pen, MI-6, Netherlands, Nicolas Sarkozy, Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, NRC, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Saint-Quentin, Schengen, Sir Richard Dearlove, the Guardian, The Independent, Xavier Bertrand

March 21, 2016 · 22:21

Is the truth out there?

That is the question that sprung to mind, when the article ‘Brexit could cost £100bn and nearly 1m jobs, CBI warns‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/21/brexit-could-cost-100bn-and-nearly-1m-jobs-cbi-warns) crossed my screen an hour ago. Of course it then continues with the subtitle ‘Report conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the CBI‘, perhaps you remember that firm named PwC? The people behind the books kept for Tesco. The firm the press avoids like the plague (especially when digging into Tesco issues). A report for the CBI no less. When we look at wiki we get ‘Confederation of British Industry is a UK business organisation, which in total speaks for 190,000 businesses’, so basically, because businesses are afraid to export their articles, we get this level of scaremongering. And let’s be honest, when Lehman Brothers is not available, PwC is all that remains. The Wiki reference will be explained shortly.

The first paragraph states “Leaving the European Union would cause a serious shock to the UK economy that could lead to 950,000 job losses and leave the average household £3,700 worse off by 2020, a report commissioned by the CBI business lobby group has warned“, I personally consider this to be a blatant lie!

There is NO WAY that there is any clear data on this event. The reason is simple. This situation has never happened before so there are questions, that is a given, yet what they predict is that 2 times 100% of exports that the UK ships to the USA becomes lost revenue. This is just ludicrous. Leave it to the place that embellished 110 million in revenue for Tesco will be able to lose 1000 times that amount in goods and services for the CBI. I am merely speculating here. I wish I could give you more, but the press is very engaged into not confronting PricewaterhouseCoopers on their actions.

The second paragraph “an analysis conducted by accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers for the CBI said that Brexit could cost the UK economy £100bn – the equivalent of 5% of GDP – by 2020 and would cause long-lasting economic damage from which it would never recover“, let take a look at the parts PwC (as I see it) hides behind ‘could cost‘ meaning that it might, it is not a given. the second part ‘would cause‘, means that if they lose 100 billion then it would impact the economy, which we can all agree with, but that level of loss is NOT a given. Lastly there is ‘long-lasting economic damage from which it would never recover’, ‘would never’ is also not a given, consider that thanks to British Labour, who caused a massive part of the fourteen hundred billion in debt, on that part 100 billion will have an impact, the economy will recover, yet in all fairness, at what speed? We all agree that this massive extra level of debt is not a good thing, but it all began with ‘could cost‘ so it is not a given! The CBI, like frightened little sissies are trying to sway voters through fear. You see, if these businesses have an actual product to share, people will buy it.

They then continue to push more fear that people would lose between £175 and £300 a month. I would be shocked, we all would be shocked. Yet again there is ‘could be lower‘, meaning it is not a given. When I read “Carolyn Fairbairn, the CBI’s director general, said: “This analysis shows very clearly why leaving the European Union would be a real blow for living standards, jobs and growth“, my response would be ‘Carolyn Fairbairn, we know you are high and mighty with previous position at the Competition and Markets Authority, Lloyds Banking Group and the UK Statistics Authority, so if you truly stand behind these analyses you will give us all (in open data) the raw data, the analyses and the conclusions with data connections‘.

I feel certain that we will see all kinds of weighting, forecasting and predictive modelling. As I see them, they will be utterly useless, for the mere reason I gave at the start of my blog “This situation has never happened before“, there will be turmoil, there will be a time of flux, but this forecast of utter blackness on non-given facts and shady forecasts is just completely out of bounds.

You see, I went to Wiki for a reason, when we go to their website we get a few issues (and initially their website was unreachable for about 15 minutes). The first one is from 15^th of March (at http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/cbi-to-make-economic-case-to-remain-in-eu-after-reaffirming-strong-member-mandate/), here we get the quote “80% of CBI members think being in EU is best for their business – ComRes survey“, now, consider the following two elements, first is the ‘given’ fact on their site “CBI’s relationship with 190,000 businesses of all sizes across the UK“, now consider that survey where 80% wants to stay within had the following quote: “The survey had 773 responses among small, medium and large firms across the whole of the UK. It reveals 80% of CBI members, when weighted to reflect its membership – including 71% of small and mid-sized business members – believe that the UK remaining a member of the EU would be best for their business. Overall, 5% say it is in their firms’ best interests for the UK to leave the EU, with 15% unsure“, So out of 773 responses, 116 were not sure, so only 658 were certain one way or another, so the 80% comes from that group?

In addition, the fact that I, in 24 years have never seen ANY survey been answered for 100%, so how many answered it, how were the numbers given and how can any of the numbers have ANY level of reliability? That is even before we start looking into the questionnaires some people tend to make, which is often enough not that neutral to begin with.

All these thoughts took 45 seconds to form, after which I needed 30 minutes to look into some of the known givens whilst Graham Norton was playing in the background. The biggest fun I had was considering the part where the CBI is basically stating between the lines that “UK products are so shaite, that it can only be sold under EU membership“, is that not so Mrs Fairbairn? I believe that UK produce is high, high enough that there will always be a demand and high enough that people will go out of their way to get it. The gaming column last week that had a go at Brexit earlier was eager to ignore the fact that some of the better games developers are British, there is British Beef, British Lamb, the UK foundation in vegetables and fruits. The United Kingdom has always had a good stock and a proud tradition. I think that these traditional times can return the UK to better times.

That is also a speculation on my side. You see, this is the one time that the Telegraph has a fair point (yes, this rare occurrence happened on February 23^rd 2016), There is the quote “The only appalling part is that we import so much poor quality foreign food at the expense of our own farmers“, I believe that there is a deeper truth. Obesity comes from junk food and from bad quality food. Yes, produce might rise a little in price, yet when you get the same quality ingredients from eating only 50% of the amount of junk goods you used to eat because it was cheaper, I believe that the overall health of the British population would also go up (read: lowering obesity). Mrs Fairbairn could have given that information too, you see the CBI site claimed to be connected to 190,000 businesses, so how many of them are farms?

This is no longer the age of Tesco (thanks to PwC to some extent), in addition, it stops being the place for Aldi and Lidl, it will slowly return to being the place of the neighbourhood grocery and butcher. I have nothing against Aldi and Lidl, yet their models do not run on the small local farms, their margins (low margins mind you) comes from bulk retail from big portion purchasers to deliver to all stores. It is a fair model, yet after Brexit there will be a change, their margins will fall, that is a reality, but if this opts for small business owners to rise from the ashes, the Brits in general will all win, we would see a need for jobs, not a loss of jobs. Again, this is speculative on my side, yet I do not go about scaring you readers like the CBI is doing through PricewaterhouseCoopers.

So, how about my own statement: “I personally consider this to be a blatant lie“?

As I see it, this report has issues, possibly a whole lot of them and if that is not the case, Carolyn Fairbairn would (read: should) have all the data ready for us all. When we see this level of incomplete information, giving rise to the possibility of misinformation the reference to ‘blatant lie’ is a fair given one, as I see it of course.

Now, mind you, the CBI page has the full report ready (at http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/leaving-eu-would-cause-a-serious-shock-to-uk-economy-new-pwc-analysis/leaving-the-eu-implications-for-the-uk-economy/), a 79 page document, so what does that give us and why was that not in the Guardian (as far as I could tell)?

We see the following under the key findings:

We have assessed the potential economic impacts of a UK exit from the EU under two possible scenarios
We estimate that total UK GDP in 2020 could be between around 3% and 5.5% lower under the FTA and WTO scenarios respectively than if the UK remains in the EU (interesting is how ‘we estimate that’ was not in bold)
The negative impact represents a reduction of around £55-100 billion in UK GDP, at 2015 values

And the final bullet point was “As with any economic modelling exercise, our estimates are subject to many uncertainties“, which is actually the core of it all, too many uncertainties, which gives additional weight to my statement.

Yet how were these numbers derived?

You see, when we see ‘Table 2.1: Exit scenario results – percentage difference in real UK GDP from levels in counterfactual scenario‘, we think we have something here, but on what core business is this founded? Is this on raw data sets? On aggregated data? You see, PwC have done all kinds of reports where they were overly optimistic, is the idea that they are intensely overly conservative on any of these numbers (by request of the CBI) and that the negative numbers are actually quite too negative? The fact that they are making predictions until 2030, whilst so far many firms resorting to analyses have been unable to make any decent prediction 3 years into the future, they ended to be overly optimistic again and again by more than one percent (try remembering Greece and Cyprus). Then there is: “A vote to leave the EU would create economic and political uncertainty that could last for several years while the UK Government negotiates the terms of its exit from the EU as well as new trade arrangements with non-EU countries“. Here is the kicker: the report did not once, I say again not once properly discuss the option of growing economies by promoting a growth interaction between Commonwealth nations. The UK stands not alone! Her siblings Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India et al, still need goods too. Whilst we see the ‘BS’ (Belonius Substance) from America regarding how the UK must stay within the EU, the UK can decide to collaborate with India on Generic medication. Now suddenly we get some individual in a white condo going on how friends should remain friends (that individual tends to be addressed as President of the United States), so here is one side of commerce that would ‘suddenly’ open doors for all kinds of trade.

The bibliography has a fair amount of theory references, and even though their existence, or their academic value is not in question, what is in question is the PDF we are looking at, especially when we see ‘Figure D.5: Working age population projections under the WTO and FTA scenarios and counterfactual‘, we see these numbers and graphs, but from what dataset? Where do we see any reference to the data population used, especially when we see a collection of graphs from various sources but with no clear reference to the numbers that these predictions are based on? In one example starting on page 47, we see ‘C.1 Economic context and key issues‘, with a reference to three graphs from two different suppliers. This gives me a few additional question marks (and it should leave you with even more questions). You see, if 80% wants to stay in Europe as stated by the CBI, whilst they had less than 800 responses, how does that hold any weight to the fact that they, on their own site state “the CBI’s relationship with 190,000 businesses of all sizes across the UK gives us a unique insight into what the result will mean for UK prosperity“, which means that 80% of the 0.4% of the businesses that decided to answer the call of the survey. I think I have raised enough questions for you the reader to be a lot less worried in this case!

Now, I am not stating that there will not be any issues, because the UK will face issues, but in equal measure the UK will stop making massive donations to a system that does not hold some of its members properly to account. It is like carrying buckets of water to the sea, an empty gesture that is a clear waste of time and money.

By the way, that report has a very interesting by-line which is shown at the very end (page 79): “This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice“, so if that is the moment of non-accountability than my final words are towards the writer of the article Julia Kollewe and especially her boss (or the boss of her boss, Katharine Viner): ‘How could you have been so stupid to go with this article. From my point of view, as a blogger tends to be a subjective one, it is a hack job, nothing more than mere anti Brexit material‘. As a newspaper you should have known a lot better! The fact that Julia writes “By taking a clear stance on Brexit, the CBI differs from the smaller business lobby group the British Chambers of Commerce, which is trying to be impartial. It recently suspended its director general, John Longworth, from his post after he suggested that Britain would be better off outside the EU“, yes, they might have done this, and they did it in what I regard a shady and shoddy way!

The article in the Guardian and the report leaves us with a few questions regarding Carolyn Fairbairn, the CBI as well as a few questions regarding the editorial of the Guardian. I hope that at the very least that part has been brought to the surface by me writing this article.

To all a lovely evening and whether you believe in Brexit or Bremain, make sure that you go towards the referendum properly informed!

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Aldi, Australia, Bremain, Brexit, Canada, Carolyn Fairbairn, CBI., Competition and Markets Authority, ComRes, Cyprus, Greece, India, John Longworth, Julia Kollewe, Katharine Viner, Lidl, Lloyds Banking Group, New Zealand, President of the United States, PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, Tesco, UK Statistics Authority

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives