Category Archives: Law

September 15, 2016 · 16:22

Did UKIP get it right?

That is a question that is slowly growing within the minds of Britons and non-Britons alike. Some will be in denial over it all, some will ignore their inner voice and some will ponder it. You see, once the banter and the mudslinging stops and people are sitting down thinking over a year in political waves, we are slowly getting the aftermath news and suddenly things are a lot less gloomy. Bloomberg gives us “There’s dwindling talk of a recession caused by the vote the leave the European Union, and British politicians are wondering if a “hard Brexit” option –rapid withdrawal from Europe without a new trade agreement – might be feasible. The answer is no. Such views rest upon bad economic reasoning and the cost of Brexit remains high, albeit mostly invisible for the time being“, is part of the news. You see, the scaremongers are now out of the view and the negative impacts, the ones we knew about are showing to be less negative than the scaremongers proclaimed. I agree and always did agree that the cost would be high. Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England had stated it, and in addition stated that there were elements that could not be forecasted. Which is also a truth. They are the invisible costs that will come and come again. The issue in my mind has always been, will it in the end be worth it (are the costs not unaffordable high) and I leaned more and more towards the Yes side!

You see, one of the main reasons for leaning towards Brexit was Mario Draghi. The trillion plus stimulus plans he had were too unfounded. Japan and the US are showing that there had been no clear increase whilst we hear opposite claims. The issue is actually brought to light by Bloomberg last week (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-09-08/ecb-s-mario-draghi-downplays-more-stimulus), where we hear at 00:39 that there is an impact on the markets, but no real impact on the economy, which was my issue from the start. Politicians casually mixing both up in their speeches were playing, as I see it a flim-flam artist dictionary game, trying to make us think it is one and the same, yet they all know that it is not. So no real impact yet will over a trillion deeper in debt, only those on the financial markets, only some of them got a big payday out of all of it, the rest just has to assist in paying off the invoice. It is one of the pillars UKIP had!

Now we see even more issues, especially when we see additional issues in City A.M. (at http://www.cityam.com/249335/christine-lagarde-and-mario-draghi-call-politicians-do-more), with the quote “Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank (ECB) said governments and institutions needed to make sure their policies did not leave the poorest members of society behind, and called for structural reforms to help share the spoils of economic growth“, the failure of the European Community laid bare! You see, the people on EEC incomes have been meeting and not getting anywhere for almost 15 years now! The fact that tax laws and Corporate laws required revision even before 2004 as a requirement and after 2004 as a given is shown that none of this has been adequately done. The fact that the US played its cards in the Summit in the Netherlands in 2013, we all knew how that ended, so as we see that some are now crying cockroach, whilst littering food all over the floor only have themselves to thank for this situation. This all reflects back on the initial issue UKIP gave, ‘let’s make Britain about the British’. This is not racism, this is nationalism (read: nationalistic pride). An issue that neither Christine Lagarde nor Mario Draghi could resolve as they have been setting a neutral pose in aid of large corporations for far too long.

The next issue is the economic plan B that is now all over the news. The powerful monetary tool (TLTRO) that at 1:37 comes with the quote “that nobody has really fully understood or analysed“, and that is the plan B they are now grasping for!

TLTRO?

It is not a cereal or breakfast solution. It is a Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operation. The ECB states “provide financing to credit institutions for periods of up to four years. They offer long-term funding at attractive conditions to banks in order to further ease private sector credit conditions and stimulate bank lending to the real economy“, that sounds nice on paper, but if we know that the impact is not understood, has never been analysed to the effect it is, this all whilst we know that taxation laws are failing and corporate laws are not up to scrap, the ECB quote could be translated to “provide financing to credit institutions for periods of up to four years. They offer a refinanced the current outstanding debts to banks, guaranteeing large bonuses by resetting bad debts and revitalising the conditions of what were supposed to be written off debts, giving a false incentive to a dangerous presented economy at present“, you see, I am almost stating the same whilst the intent completely changes, the markets are now getting a boost via the other side. This is a reality we could face!

You see, the view is given with “All the new operations will have a four-year maturity, with the possibility of repayment after two years” (at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2016/html/pr160310_1.en.html), yet like the US, Greece and Japan, it is almost a given (speculation from my side) that these maturities will be paid with new debts. When we see the quote “Counterparties will be able to repay the amounts borrowed under TLTRO II at a quarterly frequency starting two years from the settlement of each operation. Counterparties will not be subject to mandatory early repayments” gives way to the thought that it is entirely possible that when the debts mature, they could be replaced be a new debt. Giving weight to the dangers. The fact that the option ‘not subject to early repayments’ is clearly included gives ample weight to the solution, whilst not preventing additional debts from this rephrased stimulus. In the end, the economy will not prosper, the rise of the debt will. Whilst under the debts the UK already is, these arrangements are as I see it too dangerous, all this as the increase of debts only give rise and power to non-governmental institutions to grow their influence via corporations over nations. One of the better players (Natixis), had this quote “Natixis Asset Management ranks among the leading European asset managers with €328.6 billion in assets under management” (source at present intentionally omitted), with the TLTRO in play, depending on the rules of the game (which were not available to me at present), it is entirely possible that once really in play, banks can indirectly refinance risky debts in additional loans via the applicant and as such get themselves a boost. It could potentially allow Natixis to grow its asset management part up to 20%. The ECB states (at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omo/tltro/html/index.en.html) “The TLTROs are targeted operations, as the amount that banks can borrow is linked to their loans to non-financial corporations and households“, so basically companies in hardship can get relief, whilst the banks will still get their cut (aka administration and processing fee). Consider that Wealth Management is many things and Estate planning is one, now consider that Natixis has Credit and counterparty risks amounting in excess to 295 billion euro’s. Now there is a Draghi solution, one that no one seems to have ‘analysed’ that allows for solutions to non-financial corporations. Natixis is that, but their clients are not, and they can apply for the shifted funds, offsetting their loans, paying of the loans towards Natixis, who now have a massive amount of freed up cash that they can now pour into all kinds of solutions and endeavours. So do you still think that my view of 20% is oversimplified? And in 4 years? Well at that point, when things go south, Natixis and parties alike can jump in and possibly help out, ‘but at a price’ (which is fair enough).

This now reflects back to UKIP and Brexit!

The Guardian had an opinion piece (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/14/ttip-deal-british-sovereignty-cameron-ukip-treaty), that gives us the following, remember this is September 2014! “If you are worried about the power of corporations over our democracy, be very afraid: ISDS in effect grants multinationals the same legal position as a nation-state itself, and allows them to sue sovereign governments in so-called arbitration tribunals on the grounds that their profits are threatened by government policies. Is this scaremongering, as TTIP supporters claim?” So far there have been many voices who seem to be over the moon that the TTIP is now a failure and that the issues within the EU would have been far more reaching that many players were willing to admit to before the signing. Politico.eu reported “U.S. diplomats are sketching out a last-ditch plan to salvage core sections of the EU’s moribund trade deal with Washington“, that with the added “U.S. and Italian officials are now weighing the option of a “Step 1” deal to lock in elements that can be finalized by December, possibly including joint testing regimes and mutually agreed upon standards for cars, pharmaceuticals and medical devices“. It is clear that the US want to lock in Pharmaceuticals and cars, yet how is such a niche nothing more than a path trying to ditch the title ‘total loser government’ regarding the current administration. In addition “The idea has sparked immediate scepticism in the European Commission and in some EU member countries, which argue that any form of a downgraded deal will be very hard to sell politically, particularly after French Trade Minister Matthias Fekl and German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel turned hostile on the negotiations” gives way that BMW, Mercedes, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Peugeot, Citroen and Sanofi are none too pleased with such a one sided piece of paper. The idea that such set benefits would be allotted at this point gives even more weight to some of the UKIP statements in the past.

If 2 out of the many projection come true, you are not suddenly a better prognosticator, mainly because that title is reserved for the likes of Punxsutawney Phil, Queen Charlotte and Shubenacadie Sam. Let’s face it, it is the title worthy of a groundhog! But some of these steps were clearly seen, because this is where everything was headed, the more forward you look, the easier the prediction could come true is not wrong, but only if you are travelling on a straight road. A road that corporate greed depends on I might say!

In my view, there is not enough to state that UKIP got it right, yet there are also enough facts and questions in play that UKIP did not get it wrong. We might listen those who keep on shouting that Brexit was wrong and see them as the people trying to reinvent the vote, but overall people are starting to realise that the US (read Wall Street) has been trying to give people a bad deal to benefit their own greed. The fact that this is going on at this very minute is equally a worry. This is on both sides of the isle, yet we can understand that Labour needs to clean house and they have decided on the method of accidentally leaking names. How will that solve anything? If Labour was on the ball, than they would steering towards real economic improvements, not bickering minors trying to decide who should be the number two, and soon thereafter remove the number one (read: allegedly attempt to). Actions that are totally counterproductive as the Conservatives are governing until the next general elections. It seems like such a waste of energy to me.

Now we see a new escalation. It seems (at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jean-claude-juncker-proposes-new-european-military-hq-worj-towards-eu-army-1581391). So the quote “The president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker has called for a European Union military headquarters to work towards an EU-controlled army. Juncker made the proposals during his State of the Union address to MEPs in Strasbourg on Wednesday (14 September)“, which automatically makes me wonder how this correlates with Nazi Germany as this was how they resolves their bad economic times. It is a harsh history lesson to learn, but in that I am actually less afraid for a ‘new’ Nazi Europe. My issue is that many nations have their Cyber plan not in hand and any actions here give rise to the dangers that this would open up data for the Chinese Cyber groups to learn a lot more than they bargained for. You see, no matter how much denial we see, the facts are simple, Ren Zhengfei is the Huawei CEO and a former officer for the PLA. Now this does not mean that he is now still committed to the PLA, yet Huawei does business with the Chinese government and as such, they have all the specs and as such, they have all the weaknesses of these devices too, meaning that governments all over Europe are in a possible place of Cyber Scrutiny. This does not mean that I am willing to just blindly accept the NSA report, but ties like that, when you are on these levels talking to the ruling members of Chinese government, you need to be networking on a massive scale and if both the Chinese military and Chinese Intelligence (MSS) gives you the thumbs up, you have been playing the game they want you to play, plain and simple. By the way, this is not a rant, or a side step into the matter, this is a direct factual response. Nigel Farage addressed the EU on an EU Army opposing it on valid points, and he got a few more hands clapping than his opponents are comfortable with. Now this was about opposition of the EU army as a whole, but underneath is the need for any military organisation to be secure and have systems in place, systems that could be compromised. In this Huawei could validly give the same argument that all Cisco Systems are compromised by the CIA and NSA. As we cannot prove either side, or perhaps even both sides, how to proceed? Both sides would be fair enough and it only makes a case strong enough to not proceed with any EU Army, which is no solution to any existing threat, will cost massive amounts of money (and that just the initial infrastructure) and with the current upcoming changes to the EC as a whole. Especially as Marine Le Pen has vowed to hold the French referendum if she is elected, this whilst several European magazines are now stating that France can no longer avoid Frexit (at https://www.letemps.ch/economie/2016/09/12/france-ne-pourra-eviter-frexit), which I stated was a growing realistic danger if Brexit would commence, in addition, Italy is seeding its own departure later this year, but no given certainty exists at present.

All these parts I gave visibility to almost 2 years ago, the press still largely in denial and additional players are now coming out to (as I personally see it) fill their pockets as fast as possible because when this comes to town and the referendums do fall, certain people will have to give account of their actions. The fact will remain that the Credit Card that Mario Draghi used will be spread over several nations, most of them with no option to get into deeper debt. So they have this to look forward to. In Italy there seems to be a plus side, as the larger players are now looking towards the option of as referendum, the act as such seems to be taking the wind out of the sails of Matteo Salvini, head of the far-right Lega Nord, which is regarded as a relief in many European nations. They seem to regard Matteo Salvini the same way that they regard the French Newspaper Minute, too far to the right and not really that readable. I cannot confirm that (as my French does not surpass the ability to read a menu), but I understand the sentiment as there have been Dutch papers on the other side of the political isle receiving similar accusations.

In the end Europe is about to take economic steps with large implications, the fact that they are trying to push it through regardless of whatever consideration it required, which makes me worried on the fact that the impact on the European populations have been ignored for too long. The weird thing is that any action should have been in support of the European population and their needs, giving weight to more than one statement from the side of Nigel Farage.

I would suggest you ponder those facts before blindly moving into the Bremain field in the near future, because there are several issues that no one can answer and they come with obscenely high price tags!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Bayer Pharmaceuticals, bloomberg, BMW, Brexit, Christine Lagarde, CIA, Cisco, Citroen, Conservatives, EC, ECB, EEC, European Central Bank, European Community, French Newspaper Minute, French Referendum, Frexit, Huawei, IMF, International Monetary Fund, Jean-Claude Juncker, Labour, Le Temps, Lega Nord, Marine Le Pen, Mario Draghi, Matteo Salvini, Matthias Fekl, Mercedes, MSS, Natixis, NATO, Nigel Farage, NSA, Peugeot, Pla, Politico, Punxsutawney Phil, Queen Charlotte, Ren Zhengfei, Sanofi, Shubenacadie Sam, Sigmar Gabriel, Strasbourg, the Guardian, TLTRO, UKIP

September 14, 2016 · 11:20

In light of non-brilliance

I just ended reading an article that has the hairs of the back of my neck stand up straight. I have seen my share of bungles and botches, but the article ‘Solicitor mistakenly sent girl’s address to father who murdered her‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/12/safe-house-address-of-may-shipstone-murdered-by-father-accidentally-sent-to-him) kind of takes the cake!

The subtitle ‘Case review concludes there is no evidence Yasser Alromisse located daughter’s safe house via accidental disclosures‘, in that regard I wonder what evidence and how thorough things were looked at. We all know that mistakes are made at times. Yet the level of errors, when they are nothing short of reckless endangerment to the life of a child is quite the achievement.

It’s almost like giving a 5 year old an active hedge trimmer asking it to throw it in the air and catch it again. I wonder if the sitting Judge will consider leniency whether the current to that trimmer had been switched on inadvertently. The quote “reported to police that her solicitor had inadvertently disclosed their new address to Alromisse in legal papers” seems to be part of all this. In addition we see “previous addresses or identities were inadvertently given to 46-year-old Alromisse by other bodies, including a bank and the Child Support Agency“, which is one clear reason why I do not bank online. You see, it is not just about this case specifically. The fact that I have been contacted on more than one occasion, whilst the marketeers were clearly selling me things (as marketeers do), based upon information my previous telecom provider had released to them.

Another gasser is the quote “the serious case review concluded that no one could have predicted or prevented the killing, which took place in Northiam, near Rye, East Sussex, on 11^th September 2014“, in that regard, the joker in that part of the game should consider “five months earlier Lyndsey Shipstone, who had fled with her daughter to escape domestic abuse and violence“. The fact that this lady needed a safe house might be indicative of the fact that not just her, others too clearly perceived a danger to her life. You see a safe house is not just a place where you hide defected members of the FSB or MOIS, it is also where you could hide a person who prefers not to be beaten to death. #Justsaying

You see, it is not the act that is the issue. The quote “After a thorough independent review, the LSCB concluded, as did the investigating police officers, that the father planned and carried out the killing in a secretive way, using the internet and a range of covert methods to trace the family and obtain the means to carry out the murder“, so there was an online path that lead to the victims. Now, I will accept that if the mother had posted selfies with geotracking on Facebook with texts like ‘Here we now safely are‘, there is a clear case of the mother losing the plot, but that is not it, is it? Apart from legal papers that could have inadvertently contained information (which is still very wrong), it is more the issue that, as stated ‘including a bank and the Child Support Agency‘, I have to ask the question, is this an institutional failure? In addition, when I see the quote “It called for assurances from agencies that systems were in place surrounding information about vulnerable people that should not be revealed”

Which agencies and what systems? Did anyone consider not logging information on something this volatile and currently implied to be non-protective? There is one other part in the article that I find debatable. The quote “there is no evidence this information did actually allow him to track them down. In fact, it was a period of some six months after details had been disclosed to him before the mother raised concern, and in that time there is evidence the father had still been using the internet to try to trace them“.

You see if that is all true then an IT expert could have given loads of Intel on how the address was sought and how it was found. Perhaps after 2 hours of seeking an not finding anything, he might have read the legal paper stating;

Victim A, currently residing at 68 shoot her dead lane, [insert postcode] Northiam. Yes, that made it hard, did it not? And as for the time lag, how many non-law students/professionals do you know that read legal papers to the degree they should? So whilst I see the part at the end where it reads “what we want all agencies to be mindful of, is that social media and powerful internet search engines make it increasingly difficult for families fleeing violence to rely on their whereabouts remaining secret. This needs to be considered as part of safety planning and guidance given to those at risk“, there has been no mention of not entering certain data online and keeping that info off-line in a folder that is in a locked cabinet, with perhaps only a reference number. Is it me or have I oversimplified the issue?

This is what is at the centre of all this, the consideration to remain off-line. You see, when it is offline, the average person cannot accidently reveal that information, and in addition the requesting party would be required to talk to the person that has access to the paper, the person, not some code for access. It is an issue that will be evolving in the near future for many reasons. No matter what excuse Apple used (valid or otherwise), the fact that the breach was a result of vulnerabilities in Apple’s password security system, enabling persistent hackers to guess the passwords and security questions of select users. So what were these ‘persistent’ hackers? How persistent makes for how many guesses? These parts were not given, my guess is, is that it has been likely more than three times. I have seen similar issues with Skype passwords. This goes further than just quality control. It is of course part of it, but the evolution of systems shows now more than ever the need for better security control on applications and more important, on data. The idea that Child services endangered the child is more likely the stuff of nightmares for those working there, but how was it revealed? Without better insight in how things happened, there is no way to tell but the fact that the wrong person got access and accidently revealed it to the wrong person is now more likely than not.

A linked issue could be seen in the Sydney Morning Herald (at http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/massively-negligent-childrens-photos-audio-recordings-released-after-toymaker-vtech-breach-20151201-glc7ps.html), where ‘children’s photos, audio recordings released after toymaker VTech breach‘. The article being useful in more than one way I might add. The quote “A breach of almost 4,854,209 parents and 6,368,509 kids’ online accounts” should scare any parent senseless. The article which was published on December 1st 2015 gives way to more parts. In one instance is the April 20^th article (at http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/banks-fret-data-breach-law-will-stir-fear-about-digital-economy-20160419-goai8n.html), which is about the quote “Banks have warned the federal government that a proposed law requiring mandatory notification of serious data breaches risks stirring up fear about the nation’s transition towards a digital economy“, which starts the story, with mentions that there are issues with the situation as a whole. The banks make various valid cases, yet when we get to “the proposed law as being convoluted and warns it could dampen public confidence in the digital economy that the government wants to encourage“, you should consider that there are various online issues and the banks are currently losing the cyberwar, not winning it. Now, there might not be direct threat to life in this case, yet the fact that criminals are getting better at getting to your money and there is too much unclear regarding issues like the responsibility of the users regarding safeguarding passwords. There are issues all over the board and the fact that more and more applications are using shared libraries on desktop and mobile, which does not guarantee added security, far from it. One flaw is all that is needed to get multiple access to data sets. And as you might have noticed, there have been way too many flaws in IOS, Android and Windows (although I personally believe that the amount of windows flaws have grown exponential to the sum of both IOS and Android flaws. There is an additional problem, as there is a time lag between finding the flaw and fixing it. When the development teams find them it is one thing, when they act reactively because a third party had found them it becomes another matter. Now, the reality is, is that not all flaws are about personal details or data matters, but some are!

So was this mere an institutional failure through personal actions, or was it a cyber and IT issue? The issue would be easier if the report was available, but let’s take a look.

You see, The East Sussex LSCB is at http://www.eastsussexlscb.org.uk/, which looks ok, but when you take a simple deeper look (at http://www.eastsussexlscb.org.uk/index.html), we see the Parallels Plesk Panel, with the text “To log in to your Parallels Plesk Panel, visit https://www.eastsussexlscb.org.uk:8443“, now this does not give away the farm, but it raises questions, on why the page is there in the first place. Ah, but the plot thickens!

You see (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTpmZvcIZIM), there is a video on how to exploit the zero day exploit, and the video was published on 5^th Sep 2014, 6 days before the murder! It shows precisely how to get into the system and how to get the information out of such a system. Now we have ourselves a ballgame, don’t we?

No matter when it was fixed, this video gives the goods to get access to the system, meaning that other children could have been and even might be in danger. So what does the report (at http://www.eastsussexlscb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/SCR-Child-P-Overview-Report-Published-March-.16.pdf) say?

The report gives some of the goods at 3.5, where we see: “Child P’s address and important details of her mother’s circumstances were inadvertently disclosed by a number of public and private bodies during the period covered by the review, though there is no evidence that this is what enabled her father to locate her“, the intended outcome is “Agencies have in place good systems which identify information about vulnerable service users that should not be disclosed. Staff in all agencies are trained to use the agencies system and to understand the significance of this issue“, which sounds decent, but the zero day exploit their own web system has shown a flaw meaning that these systems are not to be trusted. If even one person has shared login and passwords, the security in there is pretty much null and void.

There is an important element in [100], here we see “It is also now believed that the father had accessed information about Child P and her mother from Facebook. This may have included information that the mother had a new partner and that Child P had been baptised in her local village church“, which is beyond belief! So, you need a safe house, but casually place your actions on Facebook? I am shaking my head in disbelief! Still, the point was added, yet when did these events take place? Is there any evidence that the father accessed those records? In addition, the fact that the flaws of the IT system did not make it into the report, especially in light that the video shows a step by step guide on how to get into such a system is equally a failure on the investigating body of the LSCB. I will agree that this was not the most likely intrusion, especially in light of given information on Facebook. Yet, especially in regards to items 22 and 23 on page 63 gave realisation of the fear of finding out, which places some issues with item [100] aforementioned and who placed what information exactly and on which Facebook account?

What does seem to be the case is that the death of Child P is a slightly bigger mess than either the Guardian or the BBC give vision to. I think that the failure was larger and due to the missing IT part more of an institutional failure than most realise, the fact that no clear guidance of non-social media actions might be in play as supportive evidence to that view.

As I see it, it was a preventable loss and the ‘defence’ “Although the review is clear that professionals could not have prevented this death“, is one I personally cannot agree with.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as BBC, Child P, Cyberwar, East Sussex, FSB, LSCB, Lyndsey Shipstone, Mary Shipstone, MOIS, Northiam, Parallels Plesk Panel, Sydney Morning Herald, the Guardian, UK, VTech, Yasser Alromisse, zero exploit

September 10, 2016 · 15:07

The Zuckergate Censorberg Act

Yesterday an interesting issue got to the FrontPage of the Norwegian Aftenposten (at http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Aftenposten-redaktor-om-snuoperasjonen–En-fornuftig-avgjorelse-av-Facebook-604237b.html) and for those who are slightly Norwegian linguistically challenged, there is an English version at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/08/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-napalm-girl-photo-vietnam-war.

It is something we have seen before. Although from a technical point of view, the editing (read: initial flag) is likely to have been done electronically, the added blame we see when we get to the quote “Egeland was subsequently suspended from Facebook. When Aftenposten reported on the suspension – using the same photograph in its article, which was then shared on the publication’s Facebook page – the newspaper received a message from Facebook asking it to “either remove or pixelize” the photograph” shows that this is an entirely different matter. This is now a censoring engine that is out of control. The specification ‘either remove or pixelize’ does not cut it, especially when it concerns a historical photo that was given a Pulitzer.

I am actually considering that there is more in play, you see, the Atlantic (at http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/facebook-isnt-fair/482610/) said it in May when it published “Facebook Doesn’t Have to Be Fair. The company has no legal obligation to be balanced—and lawmakers know it“, which is the title and subtitle and as such, the story is told and politicians like John Thune experienced how a social network can drown out whatever it wants (within reason). So when you see something is trending on Facebook, you must comprehend that it is not an algorithm, but contracted people guide its creation and as quotes in the Atlantic “routinely suppressed conservative news“. Yet this goes further than just censorship and news. As the Editor of Aftenposten raises (and others with him), Mark Zuckerberg has now become the most powerful editor in the world. He now has nothing less than a sworn duty to uphold the freedom of speech to a certain degree, especially when relying on algorithms that are unlikely to cut the mustard on its current track. It now also opposes the part the Atlantic gave us with the subtitle “The company has no legal obligation to be balanced—and lawmakers know it” showing Sheryl Sandberg in a ‘who gives a fuck‘ pose. You see, at present Facebook has over 1.7 billion active users. What is interesting is that the acts that he has been found guilty of acts that negatively impacts well over 50% of his active user base. Norway might be small, but he is learning that it packs a punch, and when we add India to the mix, the percentage of alienated people by the censoring act of Facebook goes up by a lot. So even as there is the use of blanket rules, the application is now showing to be more and more offensive to too many users and as such this level of censorship could hurt the bottom dollar that every social media site has, which are the number of users. So as Mark Zuckerberg is trying to get appeal in Asia, he needs to realise that catering to one more nation could have drastic consequences to those he think he has. Now we understand that there needs to be some level of censorship, yet the correct application of it seems to go the wrong way. Of course this could still all go south and we would have get used to log in to 顔のブック, or 脸书. Even चेहरे की किताब is not out of the question. So is that what Zuckerberg needs? I know the US is scared shitless in many ways when that happens, so perhaps overseeing a massive change into the world of censoring is now an important issue. Espen Egil Hansen said it nearly all when he stated “a troubling inability to “distinguish between child pornography and famous war photographs”, as well as an unwillingness to “allow space for good judgement”” is at the heart of the matter. In that regard, the issue of “routinely suppressing conservative news” remains the issue. When you censor 50% of your second largest user base, it is no longer just a case of free speech or freedom of expression. It becomes an optional case of discrimination, which could have even further extending consequences. Even as we sit now, there are lawsuits in play, the one from Pamela Geller, a person that only seems to be taken serious by Breitbart News is perhaps the most striking of all. Pamela (At http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/13/pamela-geller-suing-facebook/) with the quote “My page “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s In the Quran” was taken down from Facebook because it was “hate speech.” Hate speech? Really? The page ran the actual Quranic texts and teachings that called for hatred and incitement of violence against the Jews.” is a dangerous one. It is dangerous because it is in the same place as the Vietnam photo. The fact that this is a published religious book makes it important and the fact that the book is quoted makes it accurate. The blaze (at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/05/an-israeli-group-created-fake-anti-israel-and-anti-palestinian-facebook-pages-guess-which-one-got-taken-down/) goes one step further and conducted an experiment. The resulting quote is “The day the complaint was filed, the page inciting against Arabs was shut down. The group received a Hebrew language message from Facebook that read, according to a translation via Shurat HaDin, “We reviewed the page you reported for containing credible threat of violence and found it violates our community standards”, the page inciting against Jews was left active.” This indicates that Facebook has a series of issues. One cannot help but wonder whether this issue is merely bias or the economic print the Muslim world has when measured against a group of 8 million Israeli’s or perhaps just the population of 16 million Jews globally. With the Aftenposten event, Facebook seems to have painted itself into a corner, and if correct several lawsuits that could soon force Facebook to have a rigorous evaluation and reorganisation of several of its internal and external departments.

Because if Content is the cornerstone of Social media, the need to keep a clear view of freedom of expression and freedom of speech becomes even more important. In a product that seeks the need for growth that should have been obviously clear.

There is however a side that is not addressed by any. You might get the idea when you see the Guardian quote “News organizations are uncomfortably reliant on Facebook to reach an online audience. According to a 2016 study by Pew Research Center, 44% of US adults get their news on Facebook. Facebook’s popularity means that its algorithms can exert enormous power over public opinion“, the fact that Facebook might soon be hiding behind the ‘algorithms‘ as we see Facebook go forward on a defence relying on their version of the DEFAMATION ACT. In this example I will use the DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (Australian Law), where we see in Article 32

32 Defence of innocent dissemination
(1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that:
(a) the defendant published the matter merely in the capacity, or as an employee or agent, of a subordinate distributor, and
(b) the defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known, that the matter was defamatory, and
(c) the defendant’s lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is a “subordinate distributor” of defamatory matter if the person:

(a) was not the first or primary distributor of the matter, and
(b) was not the author or originator of the matter, and
(c) did not have any capacity to exercise editorial control over the content of the matter (or over the publication of the matter) before it was first published.

By relying on Algorithms, Facebook could now possible skate the issue, yet this can only happen if certain elements fall away, in addition, the algorithm will now become part of the case and debate muddying the waters further still.

Hanson does hit the nail on the head when it comes to the issues he raises like “geographically differentiated guidelines and rules for publication”, “distinguish[ing] between editors and other Facebook users,” and a “comprehensive review of the way you operate”. He is not wrong, yet I have to raise the following

In the first, when you decide to rely on “geographically differentiated guidelines and rules for publication”, you also include the rules of who you publish to. This is the first danger for Facebook, their granularity could fall away to some extent and Facebook advertising is all about global granularity. It is a path he would be very unwilling to skate. Open and global are his ticket to some of the largest companies. When this comes into play, smaller players like Coca Cola and Mars could soon find the beauty of moving some of their advertisements funds away from Facebook and towards Google AdWords. I am decently certain that Google will not be opposing that view any day soon.

In the second “distinguish[ing] between editors and other Facebook users” is only part of the path, you see when we start classifying the user, Facebook could start having to classify a little too much, making any distinguishing of such kind additional worries in regards to discrimination. Twitter faced that mess recently when a certain picture from one Newspaper was allowed and another one was not. That and the fact that a woman named Molly Wood (her actual name) was not allowed to use her name as her Facebook name, which is a matter for another day.

In the third the issue “comprehensive review of the way you operate” which is very much in play. The cases that Facebook has faced regarding content and privacy are merely the tip of the iceberg. We can all agree that when it is about sex crimes people tend to notice it, I am speculating for the most because of the word ‘sex’. So when I saw that there is a June reference (at http://www.mrctv.org/blog/facebook-censuring-international-stories-about-rapes-muslim-refugees), when Facebook removed a video from Ingrid Carlqvist for the Gatestone Institute, where she reports that there has been a 1,500% increase in rapes in Sweden, I was wondering why this had not found the front page of EVERY newspaper in every nations where there is free speech. The Gatestone Institute is a not-for-profit international policy think tank run by former UN Ambassador John Bolton, so not some kind of radicalised front.

In that regard is any kind of censoring even acceptable?

This case is more apt than you think when you consider the quote we see, even as I cannot give weight to the publishing site. We see “Facebook may have been incited to censor this story by a new European Union push in cooperation with Facebook, Twitter, and Google to report incidents of racism or xenophobia to the authorities for criminal prosecution” with the by-line “In order to prevent the spread of illegal hate speech, it is essential to ensure that relevant national laws transposing the Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia are fully enforced by Member States in the online as well as the in the offline environment. While the effective application of provisions criminalising hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated“, which was followed by “No matter why Facebook decided to remove Ingrid Carlqvist’s personal page, it doesn’t lessen the fact that this is another example of their political censorship, and their desire to place political correctness over freedom of the press and freedom of expression”

Now this part has value and weight for the following reason: When we consider the earlier move by Facebook to relay on algorithms, the European Commission (at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm) gives us: ‘is expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame‘, which could imply that an algorithm will not be regarded as one of the online intermediaries, which means that the human element remains and that Facebook cannot rely on the innocent dissemination part of the Defamation Act, meaning that they could end up being in hot water in several countries soon enough.

As parting words, let Facebook take heed of the words of Steven Spielberg: “There is a fine line between censorship and good taste and moral responsibility“.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Religion

Tagged as Aftenposten, aftenposten.no, Breitbart, Defamation act 2005, Espen Egil Hansen, Facebook, google, Google AdWords, John Thune, Mark Zuckerberg, Pamela Geller, Pew Research Center, Quran, Sheryl Sandberg, Shurat HaDin, Steven Spielberg, The Atlantic, the Blaze, the Guardian

September 3, 2016 · 13:32

Jack’s Place

Sometimes we wonder, what the long term effect would be if a baby is dropped on its head. At least, we should wonder about that! When we see that politicians are bending over backward to get their own way after elections, we have to wonder what we should do with politicians who have been dropped on their heads. In this case, when we see Tony Blair have a go in French (amazing quality French I tell you) on how ‘We have the right to change our minds on Brexit’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/sep/01/tony-blair-we-have-the-right-to-change-our-minds-on-brexit-eu-referendum-video). He is going on ‘on how people may change their minds’. How the people decided to move house whilst they had no idea on where they were going to. In my view, the house they are in now had rot, the house had termites and the landlord was an idiot skimming its tenants. How is whatever we move to not a better place? Labour is still at it, still trying to undo the change the people in Britain moved to as political parties were flaccid, the politicians of the EC in general were incapable and bending over for the desperate need of the USA and Wall street, the people at large have lost 60%-75% of their quality of living. All because nobody showed any backbone against the greed of Wall Street.

So as the former British politician of some renown is chatting up the French in French about the dangers of Frexit (in very good French I must admit), he seems to have forgotten historic events. It comes in the form of a little cumulative tale. As such I will go to the last verse of it all as not to iterate it all in this article. A song based on the principle of Chad Gadya, published in 1590, I move to a 17th century edition which came with the approval of Nurse Truelove.

This is the horse and the hound and the horn
That belonged to the farmer sowing his corn

This is about farmer who is sowing his fields, the farmer in the UK is being presented as the one now suffering ‘UK farmers wonder who’ll get the harvest in’ (at http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-farmers-wonder-wholl-get-the-harvest-in-agriculture-migration-brexit-labor/). The letter is not in question, there is no opposition that certain changes will have certain issues that need to be dealt with. “Richard Hirst, who farms 790 acres close to Norfolk’s blustery east coast. “They provide a fantastic service and potentially that’s all going to stop.”” the quote is fair enough, yet in that one player decided to remain quiet. I will get to that person later. What is also shown and raises questions is “Hirst relies on around 200 seasonal workers, most from Romania and Bulgaria, to plant and harvest the salad crop. Polish construction workers repair farm buildings. Polish truck drivers cart produce to market. That pattern is repeated across rural England“, how come that UK people aren’t coming to the sound of the horn of labour? Is it beneath them or is it not possible to get it done for normal UK wages? I am not stating that Richard Hirst is exploiting cheap labour, I am asking how come no one in the UK is willing to do it. We know that the farmers are hurting. When large corporations with governmental pressure options is milking the milk industry. Consider the average 2 litre milk bottle at £1.90. Whilst we see at http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/market-information/milk-prices-contracts/farmgate-prices/uk,-gb-and-ni-farmgate-prices#.V8jC4vl96Uk that farmer gets 18.14 pence per litre, down from 20.77, which means that the dairy marketing engine gets 80%. There is something not right here! We know that there are costs, yet when the main ingredient is only 20% of the price, something is not right. I suggest that we increase milk minimum to £2.20 per 2 litre, meaning that a 1 litre bottle can only cost £1.10 and the increase is shipped 100% to the farmers. How long until the dairy industry tries to get their fingers on part of that increase? I am willing to bet that they make their first attempt before the ink dries on this agreement if it ever becomes a reality. Will it hurt some? A little, I cannot deny that some are in worst places than me, yet I am willing to pay that little extra to defend a milk legacy. Milk is essential, it is for some people essential to learn that the imbalance we see here is a massive imbalance that the EU brought. Here we see (at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/milk/policy-instruments/index_en.htm), here we see that Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations, is pretty much the initial death stroke to the farmers. Now, there is partially soundness and reasoning here. Consider that we see “establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products) where the main market tools are set into 3 parts”

Market intervention
Rules concerning marketing and production
Trade with third countries

It is rules concerning marketing and production that is at hand. It was the introduction of quota’s that was some figment of someone’s imagination approach to fair trade. In actuality, it was truly an attempt to give an equal push for the small farmers and fishermen, but it ‘evolved’ into something quite differently. The larger supermarkets Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, The Co-Op, Aldi, Waitrose and Lidl had no limits on quotas as they did not produce the dairy. You see, even as the fishermen were ‘obeying’ fish quotas, Japan, China and Russia went on a fishing spree (read: are still) so that people get their cheap fish, yet in milk there is another iteration. We see this in the Guardian of July 2012 (at https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/jul/27/dairy-farmers-milk) the following “Tesco, Sainsbury, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer are all paying 30p a litre or more to dairy farmers, says the RABDF, which it says is the minimum survival threshold for farmers: ‘They are not so much the good guys, but they are at least paying 30p’“, which now gives us the issue that this year the price went down to 18.14 pence per litre. So if that is the average, how come the average price is currently 38% below the minimum survival threshold? How is that possible? If we accept that pricing is done on fairness and survivability, how come that this Economic Union is allowing for a supermarket situation where they squeeze the farmers out of a livelihood, all set to the allowance for a market, which they set is claiming to be for the fairness of all. Yet when we saw the Tesco debacle, not the PwC side, but the Tesco Executive side requires scrutiny too. Consider The Tesco Remuneration report (at https://www.tescoplc.com/media/1926/tescoar15_gov_remunerationreport.pdf). Consider that the CEO and CFO get CEO – £1,250,000, and the CFO gets £750,000. Also consider that the bonuses are CEO – maximum opportunity of 250% of base salary and for the local bookkeeper we see CFO – maximum opportunity of 225% of base salary. Consider that only 50% is set to sales and 30% is set to profit, how much money does Tesco need to make for these two people to have a really merry Christmas with family (or booze and hookers)? Now, even as the Guardian is stating that Tesco is not evil, yet they are matching the survival rate “all paying 30p a litre or more to dairy farmers“, so who is kidding who here?

That kept the rooster that crowed in the morn
That woke the priest all shaven and shorn
That married the man all tattered and torn
That kissed the maiden all forlorn

We get to the upcoming Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Act (HRA) will be dumped (read: scrapped enthusiastically). The Week published the following quote: “Scrapping the act will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights and stop the act being “misinterpreted”, say the Conservatives. They argue foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes are able to use the freedoms guaranteed under the Human Rights Act to justify remaining in the UK“, the right to self-govern is here in jeopardy. We seem to be all over Strasbourg to guarantee the rights of criminals, yet there is too little for their victims. Whilst the quote from the Tories is “aim is to “restore common sense and tackle the misuse of the rights contained in the Convention”“, this actually makes sense. There have been one too many stories on how a Rapist was given leave to stay in the UK, now he is imprisoned for life Rapist Dahir Ibrahim decided to retry his penetrating event. His defending lawyer stated “No long term physical injury was sustained by the victims“, so why not send his daughters to Pakistan? There is every chance that the culprits will be acquitted. Even more so, the Lawyers daughter could become famous as in one case the transgressor filmed 280 events. So his daughter could become a Bollywood star. Wouldn’t that be great?

There is the danger that events get uplifted because of emotional factors. That is not a good thing, which is why I voiced it in this way, we need to try to keep as much emotion out of legal issues, yet this does not mean to be soft on hardened criminals. It is the right of the UK to allow people in, yet in equal measure, if these visitors resort to serious crimes, should the victims not be allowed to voice for them to be evicted (through a court of law of course)? Even more so, why should any government allow for those deciding to go for ‘serious criminal solutions’ to be allowed within their nation? It is my view that Strasbourg has been too academic, too focused on finding a ‘compromise’ that this path seems to highly favour the path of the criminal and less so on the victim. It is my personal believe that the Bill of Rights might be a solution, especially if the 15 freedoms are kept.

So before we go into the last part. We looked at the economy (well, sort of), we see that Laws in general have failed the people of the nation, we see that large corporations are given too much leeway and too much options, whilst the press reflects this as ‘but they pay more than average’, which holds no water when the fee paid is 38% below the survivability threshold. By trying to please a few hundred at the expense of millions of non-receiving victims of society. Consider the next part. If I, for the most a dedicated Conservative see this, when I noticed the victims that the EC has been creating, how come Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn cannot see this? They should be squarely on the side of the Dairy farmer and the milkman, a side they both neglected (read: ignored). There is a constitutional failing in play and the fact that the hardships of some are mere plays for politics is just sad.

That milked the cow with the crumpled horn
That tossed the dog that worried the cat
That killed the rat that ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

Well, we just dealt with the milk. Yet, what has been ignored is the play of Rat and Cat and Dog. The cat chases the rat, but who is rat and who is cat? It can be argued that the EC and the USA are either, the issue with an exploitative symbioses is that it becomes increasingly hard to differ between the parasite and the body he feeds of, the better the parasite, the harder it becomes to find the parasite in the body. The dog becomes the UK, on one side it howls against the moon waking us all up (read: for naught). At times it chases the wrong party (read: mailman), yet the dog has its shiny moments. It howls, barks and bites the burglar in your house, it alerts to the dangers coming to the door and it can scare off dangers. Any dog has good and bad moments. The fact that some laws have still not been updated is a concern and the Bill of Rights wasn’t the first one that needed to come. However, for the benefit of the European segregation it does make sense. My biggest issue is that the EU decided on too little and far too late that makes Brexit a fact not to ignore, the fact that people like Tony Blair are now making speeches in France, winking to the UK that people can change their minds is a larger issue. Especially as the events leading towards Brexit has never been dealt with.

Yet we are not done, you see, Mario Draghi is still having a go at it, his latest quote states: “The figures won’t come as a shock to ECB President Mario Draghi, who warned in July that inflation rates were likely to remain “very low” over coming months, before picking up toward the end of the year” (source: Wall Street Journal), you see, there is a truth there, especially as he is relying on the Christmas shopping spree to save him. Yet, in this, is that number corrected (for end of year uplift)? If not than the European economy is in an even less inspiring state than most are willing to admit to. This in light of conflicting numbers coming from America when we see positivity one day, negativity the next. We know on a global scale economies are in a slump and because there was a dire need to keep the Status Quo and move it from virtual to fictional. We can no longer afford that game, which is why Brexit made sense.

We can use the quote by CNBC we saw on September 2^nd (at http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/02/jobs-report-proves-janet-yellen-is-wrong-about-the-economy-commentary.html) where we see “The reported August job gains were also considerably below the gains in June and July. The unemployment rate was forecast to fall to 4.8 percent, but held steady at 4.9 percent. Both numbers are disappointing and make a September rate hike less likely“. We could agree that it means that the US is in a slow upwards momentum, which would be really good for the US government. Yet it is only half the picture. The other side we see quoted in the Business insider (at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/albert-edwards-consumer-crutch-holding-up-us-economy-kicked-away-2016-9). Here Edward claims what I have stated in other ways several times before. The quote “Albert Edwards doesn’t think that the consumer can keep the US economy afloat for very long” was only the start, but it boils down to the fact that the US consumer is stopping its spending’s on many levels. The US has a massive issue at that point, because it has relied on consumer spending for far too long (instead of corporate taxation). Even if spending goes up the smallest amount in the weeks leading up to Thanksgiving, the elections are on November 8^th, 2016 which means that the successor might enjoy those results, but the Democratic Party will only be able to rely on half-baked speculations at that point. Even if they would dare to go that distance, there is enough ‘evidence’ to see that their predictions would end up being overly optimistic. What is the issue is that the US now desperately requires a solution, which those in power, who require the status quo to continue will not allow for. In that light we see the remarks by Tony Blair. Trying to sway the people that they can change their minds and more important on downgrading the new house at any cost. You see, when the UK sees that the move was harsh, but slowly people are starting to see their new living room, different, likely a little smaller, but soon it will feel comfortable and it will come with the feel of comfort the people in the UK have not known for decades. It will not come in the wake of laziness as many will need to work really hard, but that money will now benefit the UK, which is why we need to pull together as a Commonwealth, we need to pull together a lot more than most of our politicians are comfortable with. Soon thereafter it will no longer be Jack’s place, it will be your home. One that is interconnected in many ways, some good, some bad and someone is always chasing you, just as you are always chasing something or someone. A lesson in coexistence that does not require the parasite approach, something they still don’t get on Wall Street. You see as we see in the Australian Financial Review quotes like “Richard Fontaine, a leading US foreign policy expert” on how Australia is so vulnerable on Chinese demands, he seems to forget that his government did whatever they could to ram the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) down our throats. And now that the US is realising that with Brexit the game is truly ending, in addition we see that President Hollande feels the coffin nail that the TTIP carries as well as the vision on how it seems to only propel the need for big business, whilst Google’s option to drive commerce is not yet ready, it could be the true new innovation for small corporations, where the corporations keep the power on a global scale. Three elements that show that not only will the US face an economic slump (read: I find the statement ‘recession’ too speculative). Yet, the playing parties in the final moments on a lame duck president on the way to the morgue is not a moment to put political weight to final acts of despair whilst the new president is not set and that agenda could unwind everything, so the players have too much to lose as the dealer is about to change, possible with new decks of cards.

In that regard the economic players are currently realising that until January: ‘The safest way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your pocket‘.

Not good news for President Barack Obama, Tony Blair or Strasbourg for that matter. Perhaps Mario Draghi will get it at some point, but I am not holding my breath on that achievement to happen any day soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Aldi, ASDA, Australian Financial Review, Bill of Rights, Bollywood, Brexit, Bulgaria, Chad Gadya, China, CNBC, Dahir Ibrahim, European Court of Human Rights, European Parliament, France, Frexit, Japan, Jeremy Corbyn, Lidl, Mario Draghi, Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, Nurse Truelove, politico.eu, President Barack Obama, President Hollande, PwC, RABDF, Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, Richard Fontaine, Richard Hirst, Romania, Russia, Sainsbury, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Tesco Remuneration report, The Co-Op, the Guardian, The Human Rights Act, Tony Blair, TPP, TTIP, Waitrose

August 27, 2016 · 15:47

The Validity of Targeted Killing

This is not some euphemism like the trials and tribulations of Ezio Auditore da Firenze. This is not a game, nor is it some romantic twist. It is the harsh reality of a government that didn’t get it to begin with and now as the body count ads up, it has painted itself into a corner and until it wakes up and gets active, its citizens will be placed into immediate harm. The undeniable consequence of a flaccid government set to inaction. The nice part is, is that governments at large are all on the same boat. The US, nominated as the most stupid one, followed by the European Community at large, the Commonwealth and a few more nations. It seems that in this specific case China is the only clever participant (in this specific case).

To give you the connections at hand, we need to realise what exactly is Targeted Killing. In this case it is the ‘Assassination by a state organisation outside of the judicial procedure or a battlefield’. Yet in this, the existing definition is not complete or correct. In this day and age, assassination is done in a multitude of ways, not always corporeal being lethal, but in some cases that might actually have been an act of mercy if it ended that way. So what is this about?

You might think that it started with ‘WhatsApp privacy backlash: Facebook angers users by harvesting their data‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-backlash-facebook-data-privacy-users), but you would be wrong. This is not the start, but it might be the end of the beginning. You see, the one part that people forgot is that data once captured will be an entity onto itself, it will take on a life of its own, your shadow self, but a part you no longer have control of. You see, you still control your shadow, you step away from the light and it moves your shadow, when all the light is gone, your shadow is dead, because it only lives through your indirect interaction with light. The link we have initially is: ‘WhatsApp to give users’ phone numbers to Facebook for targeted ads‘, which the Guardian published 2 days ago. You see, the subtitle “Messaging service will begin sharing private information with Facebook and is preparing to allow businesses to message users” gives us the consequence. Our data is no longer our own, we gave that right up and as such, data is now starting to get shared with people we did not consider it could be shared with. So even if we see that this reflects on ‘phone numbers’ this first step is more than that as we see ‘sharing private information‘, when you consider the quote “They will have 30 days to decide whether to opt out of their information being used for ad targeting on Facebook, but will not be able to opt out of their data being sharing with the social network“, you might get a first idea of how bad things could possibly become. The quote “Whether it’s hearing from your bank about a potentially fraudulent transaction, or getting notified by an airline about a delayed flight, many of us get this information elsewhere, including in text messages and phone calls“, this quote seems nice, but that is not the information some are looking for. Consider how often you called a health professional. Now consider that the insurance agencies start digging into all the calls they can get their hands on. They can data-mine it by linking that to all the health professionals that work through them. Let’s put that into a state of reference you will understand.

Any person is likely to be connected to health professionals and pharmacies. Like your GP (physician), a Chemist and perhaps a Medical Clinic. Now consider that if you have called any of these places in total 4 times or more this year, your insurance could go up by 10%, and an additional 2% for any additional call in that time period. This will be worth Millions to that insurance agency, because they will get the data that involves 10% or more of their customer base. Now, this last part is a little speculative. The reason is that clear information is not out there. Some state that WhatsApp has 8% coverage in the US, whilst another source states 34%. There is no clear number we can trust because those behind WhatsApp are also aware that high numbers will cause concern, so we get bombarded with specific information, not giving us an exact picture. Yet for the US, we see that the number of users is between 26 and 79 million, which is too large a fluctuation, yet in other places like South Africa, where the usage is 68% and 72% in Brazil. Now we have another matter, because insurance agents, in these areas can form a health hazard image with much greater precision, it maximises their profits and changes a health entity into a ‘milking solution’ of healthy people, the others can sit on expensive bills and die of their own good accord.

That is what the article does not bring forth and that is what is only just below the surface. It is all happening because of two sides. On the one side, political players left too many backdoors open, meaning that in reality these players will never be prosecuted in any way. On the other side, a clear information pass to all people alarming them of the dangers that data collection brings was not in the cards either. Here, the governments get a little bit of leeway as no one truly saw the impact that social media would have, Facebook changed it in many unimaginable ways.

With WhatsApp now surpassing the 1 billion user market we now have a player that has global coverage, making that data worth a lot to some players, the insurance world is only one of them. Consider the interaction of Mobiles and the internet and what other information is being collected. That is now becoming clear and as certain cases saw in the past, data might be deleted, but will never be wiped, so as such we now have a massive issue and this is only the beginning. You see, even as the people at WhatsApp are trying to put your fear to sleep. The quote “WhatsApp said: “We won’t post or share your WhatsApp number with others, including on Facebook, and we still won’t sell, share, or give your phone number to advertisers.”” should not diminish that fear. You see, “we still won’t sell, share, or give your phone number” is not the art that matters. What does matter is what unique identifier will be shared and no matter what the foundation of that number is, once it is decomposed to its core and can be made uniquely identifiable, it will start the next push towards the epitaph of privacy.

So how does this relate to targeted killing?

You see the plain fact is, is that we no longer have a correct view on how politicians view ‘the long term’. You see, ‘for the good of all’ is now a hollow statement, especially when we consider the latest president of the US and more important, the impact that whomever comes next has. We can see that in the following links ‘Corporate tax reform is vital to boosting America’s growth‘ (Financial Times), where we see “In the intervening years, nearly every developed country has reformed its tax codes to make them more competitive than that of America. Meanwhile, the US has allowed its tax code to atrophy“, which is one way to tell the story. What is the crux is that for too long tax breaks were given to large corporations. Tax breaks that allowed them to operate for nearly free, making the revenue they obtained, to be ‘the profit they got’. In addition we see ‘Treasury Department Criticizes EU on Corporate Tax Probes‘ (at http://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-department-criticizes-eu-on-corporate-tax-probes-1472059767), here we see “U.S. officials also see a potential risk to the federal budget. Under current law, U.S. companies owe U.S. taxes on the profits they earn around the world and get tax credits for payments to foreign governments. To the extent they pay more in Europe, they could pay less to the U.S. when they repatriate the money or when Congress imposes a mandatory tax on their stockpiled foreign profits“. Here we could go into ‘Yay, America, good for you mode‘, but the truth is that part of 325 American Consumers (many of them being non-consumer) is nothing compared to the billions of consumers companies like Apple are getting their profits from. The linked White paper (added at the end) states “Beginning in June 2014, the Commission announced that certain transfer pricing rulings given by Member States to particular taxpayers may have violated the EU’s restriction on State aid. These investigations, if continued, have considerable implications for the United States—for the U.S. government directly and for U.S. companies—in the form of potential lost tax revenue and increased barriers to cross-border investment. Critically, these investigations also undermine the multilateral progress made towards reducing tax avoidance“, a paper that comes from the US Treasury. Perhaps people there like Jacob J. Lew and Sarah Bloom Raskin should have realised the long term consequences that they thrust towards others and are now thrust back onto them. If the treasury would not have been so stupid to send a member of the USC (United States of Cowards), namely President Obama to make a presentation in The Hague in 2013, where we see a refusal to back international taxation laws to allow for tougher calls on digital companies. The official quote was “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“. I dealt with this in my articles ‘Delusional‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/04/07/delusional/) and ‘Ignoranus Totalicus‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/04/24/ignoranus-totalicus/), which I wrote on April 7^th and 24^th of this year. So perhaps hoping for as they state it an “unforeseeable departure from the status quo” was not the best idea to have, especially as maintaining the Status Quo screwed up Greece for economic life and it got them Brexit! Two elements that will push taxation changes in the European Union even further.

So how stupid were they?

Well, from one side we could state ‘extremely so’, yet that would ignore the part that is ignored by many. The truth is that players like Apple, Google and Facebook now have powers that exceed many governments and they have the benefit of not being in debt. So it amounts to Facebook giving a presentation to these so called ‘Senior Officials’ in Washington with on the last slide they see ‘Monkey see, Monkey do!’, and the presentation, minus the final slide gets send around by so called senior officials. Our lives now firmly in the hands of non-elected officials.

That is the crux, because it can only stop with massive changes to the taxation system, with the dangers that it will break the back of national economies. It is that regard that made Brexit a necessary evil and when official discussions start in 2017 as Article 50 comes into play, the line of taxation will change even more. All because those who needed to advocate change were unwilling to clearly speak out and now hell comes for its pound of flesh.

Now we can complete the targeted killing part that was unclear. You see the definition should be: ‘The Assassination by a ruling organisation outside of the Judicial procedure or a battlefield‘, which now puts Facebook in play. You see, when Brad J. Bushman Ph.D. wrote ‘It’s Time to Kill the Death Penalty‘ (at https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201401/it-s-time-kill-the-death-penalty), he forgot a few parts. Now, this is a good article and seeing the sides he discusses in the frame it was written is well worth reading. Yet, when he states “The Death Penalty Models the behaviour it seeks to Prevent” is about the act of corporeally killing a person. Then we get ‘You Might Kill the Wrong Person‘ which is a valid argument any day of the week. Now consider those who would kill you in different ways. When Facebook bans you for life, it stops you from interacting and as such you become a social pariah, an outcast and you are withdrawn from social circles, yet their model is not about your limit to interaction. When they sell on your data you run the risk to get barred from certain rights. Rights to medical support as insurance agents find you a risk and make the monthly fee no longer affordable. It will potentially change your data as you are a risk to finances and limit or stop creditability for a house. Algorithms will stop you to move forward. You will be dead in the soul as the rightful interactions for your way of life are removed from you, mostly all from predictive modelling, an expected future, not a given fact. You become guilty until proven incorrectly processed. It is still targeted killing, but one of a different kind. And in all this Facebook would never be made accountable for any of this. That is the part that all seem to ignore. Those who do prosecute it will try to get a large fine out of it, yet the people wronged will still be regarded as ‘executed’.

Now in light of all this and all of you would have seen, consider the statement that the ACLU gave “The capital punishment system is discriminatory and arbitrary and inherently violates the Constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The ACLU opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, and looks forward to the day when the United States joins the majority of nations in abolishing it“, being excluded from healthcare as insurers make certain paths unaffordable is certainly discriminatory, especially as the true vetting of the data that is used against the people cannot be verified and is forced upon a ‘victim’. In addition, the isolation that results from these actions can be regarded as torture.

So how was there not a stronger level of protection? That part is harder to argue as it was your personal freedom to join up to these services and once the data is given, when the service changes its foundational work, we have no say over the removal of already collected data. So when we consider the quote “The service will not be merged with Facebook’s other chat-based service Messenger or photo-sharing service Instagram. But all services under Facebook will gain access to WhatsApp users’ phone numbers and other account information, and it can be used to suggest contacts be added as friends“, so now we see the dangers that professional contacts become social contacts (read: ‘friends’). I have seen that this could end up being a great way to kill your own career and in this day and age, those without a job tend to lose a lot more than just a job. An efficient and bloodless way to expedite targeted killing whilst not leaving any blood on the floor or a corpse. They are true fears beyond the death sentence in this day and age, a fear which cannot be altered as taxation dollar to support these people are not coming in any day soon. It is a potential nightmare to many registered users. If only the right laws had been enacted to prevent this from happening. So even as there might not be any validity in targeted killing, we are now in a place where it can happen, and it is not considered as such, as there is no corpse to process and in the corporate spreadsheets validity is not an actionable point, it merely is not illegal, making it valid and legal for all pushing towards an economy of data sales.

Have a great evening and do not forget to update your status to ‘it’s complicated‘, because it truly is about to become that for plenty of registered social media users.

White-Paper-State-Aid

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as ACLU, Apple, Article 50, Brad J. Bushman Ph.D, Brexit, China, Commonwealth, European Community, Ezio Auditore da Firenze, Facebook, Jacob J. Lew, President Obama, Sarah Bloom Raskin, US, US Treasury, WhatsApp

August 26, 2016 · 08:05

Under construction?

As some might be aware, most of the last week was about travelling the Sky, the Sky of No Man and it has been all it promised, even now, as I am stranded on a planet in a galaxy far far away, I see that I have coin for the brothel, but there is no brothel. I have Anti-Matter for my warp drive, yet it is broken, it is short a resonator, so I am now exploring the planet, hoping to find two of them puppies soon. A true game of exploration where at times being clever makes all the difference. Yet today is about another matter, not exactly on exploration, but on exploring options and solutions and on how some presentations fall short. You see, there is a think-tank who had an idea (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/25/nhs-needs-eu-employees-to-avoid-collapse-says-thinktank). Now, the idea is not bad, but it is also very shaded in many ways. Let’s take a look! First there is “EU nationals who have lived in Britain for six years should get automatic citizenship“, and a few lines later we get: “The NHS would collapse without its 57,000 workers who are EU nationals and they must be offered free British citizenship so they don’t leave the country after Brexit, according to a leading think-tank“. Now these two statements are not in synch, they do not contradict each other but it raises questions. You see, the fact that 57,000 need citizenship is a strange part. Why?

Well, consider that the four National Health Services in 2015-16 employed around 1.6 million people with a combined budget of £136.7 billion. Which the Guardian published in Jan 2016. In addition, we should consider that in 2014 “the total health sector workforce across the UK was 2,165,043. This broke down into 1,789,586 in England, 198,368 in Scotland, 110,292 in Wales and 66,797 in Northern Ireland“, which we get from https://www.hsj.co.uk. So the fact that these 57,000 people represent a diminished workforce of 3.1% makes me wonder how that impact is so drastic that Automated Citizenship is voiced. Now, let me be clear, I am not opposing that part!

In addition, the fact that the NHS has shrunk by 6% in a year is a bad number, we could state almost disastrous (based on the mere number). In all this a few things are now rising to the surface.

The Think-tank states ‘Citizenship’, not permanent residency. You see, in several countries (the Netherlands for one), only in special cases is dual citizenship an option and the reality is that plenty of people might work abroad, that does not mean they are willing to give up the citizenship they have. Some French and Dutch are very proud to be that. The Netherlands is not alone, so, does this think-tank have a breakdown of numbers per nation? In addition, the article states that they are 5% is already inaccurate (57K/1.6M is not that great). In addition we also see “The Brexit result has left the future status of 3 million EU citizens living in Britain uncertain. While the IPPR says their deportation is ultimately unlikely, the lack of official reassurance is already having a chilling effect on those seeking jobs, housing, bank loans or making other long-term commitments“, a statement I already debunked in June 2015 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/22/the-news-shows-its-limit-of-english/), so I am amazed that this tail of fairies is still ongoing. The fact that in simple clarity we see “In addition to this that the applying migrant is paid at or above the Codes of Practice in Appendix J, which gets us to the other appendix (J) which clearly states that a nurse does not need to make 35,000 pounds“, so why are some continuing to weave stories on this loom of tales?

This makes me wonder what the IPPR is actually up to.

Is that not a valid question?

So when we see the quote “The think-tank says wider reform of the current system of British citizenship is so overly complicated and bureaucratic that it is deterring the high earners that the British economy needs, and is so expensive that it also deters the lower skilled workers that the sectors of the economy that depend on manual labour also need” I wonder what their end game is. You see, if there is truly a need for high earners than those companies can apply via an immigration agent. Which is a group of people the Australian ‘economy’ relies on. We should wonder when a large corporation seems to not be involved in the immigration of its staff members, should we consider letting that person in at all. This last part was a speculation from my side, yet I remember my own immigration path, so we should take the accountability of a corporation in stride in all this. In addition, the high cost are indeed a worry, yet the quote “so expensive that it also deters the lower skilled workers that the sectors of the economy that depend on manual labour also need“, which is fair enough on one side, yet when 1/20 has no job in the UK, how hard are those people needed? This is in effect a self-answering question, because there is always a need for lower skilled people, often well trained or versed in one way or another. In all this, one simple solution would be to enact an UK version of the Australian 457 VISA. There is no mention in the article towards a solution in that direction.

In addition, opening the UK labour market for Commonwealth nations is also a path that has been ignored for too long, why is that?

The article seems to answer little, only speculate on what is needed in the eyes of some, whilst the eyes seem to indicate that their view is implied to be narrow, debilitating and not entirely correct. It seems funny that this article comes from Alan Travis, author of ‘Bound and Gagged, a history of British obscenity’. It makes me want to kill someone to get a Nobel Peace prize, which comes to think off it is both Sarcasm and Irony in one small package. Irony, because it is funny how the most basic of solutions seem to be ignored. They might have been part of the report, yet in this case, why not clearly mention those issues. And Sarcasm as my findings from June 2015 were not countered and have actually been confirmed by at least one Lawyer, so I have to wonder what is going on here. For it is my personal believe that this is about a lot more than just 57.000 citizenships, this is about a fundamental change, whether this is about immigration, or about the NHS being a piggy in the middle. Yes, we all agree that 3% of staff could be disastrous, yet where are those 3% placed. The fact that this article is not mentioning that is equally a worry. We can agree that in pressure a loss of both doctors and nurses the impact is a strike at the heart of the NHS, yet there is no clear mention is there? You see, we know that it is ‘7,000 consultants & specialist registrars as well as more than 21,000 as nurses and health visitors’, yet not where and as we see that 7,000+21,000+29,000=57,000. Yet where are the 29,000 placed? Moreover, these three groups where are the set in the 4 areas. So how much per area when we consider England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? It boggles the mind on how these many incomplete parts could give way to smaller solutions diminishing the larger danger. Now, let’s face it, the danger still remains, but the assumptions seen in this article regarding the report makes me wonder how the Guardian who swallows the ‘facts’ by Santa Snowden at the drop of almost unconformable data is easily eager to let the entire NHS set on incomplete reporting.

So if the article is about ‘NHS needs EU employees to avoid collapse, says thinktank‘, why do we see side mentions of “The Brexit result has left the future status of 3 million EU citizens living in Britain uncertain“, which might not be that dire as well as “a British Future/ICM poll showed that the public does not believe the government will meet its target to reduce net migration to below 100,000 a year by 2020 even after Brexit takes place. In the poll, which was conducted just after the referendum in June, only 37% agreed the net migration target was likely to be reached in the next five years“. So is this really about the NHS, or is it a hidden story regarding Prof David Metcalf, who is calling for a much stronger enforcement of minimum labour standards in the UK to ensure the country’s flexible labour market prevents undercutting by foreign workers and boosts the welfare of British residents. You see, that too is not about the NHS, because that group of people lacks any level of skill to be regarded as optional staff for the NHS.

So consider where the title was and what this story is actually about, because it does not seem to be about the stress and resolving that stress these many nurses in the NHS are facing.

Perhaps it is still under construction, like an empty webpage with a simple icon from a cheap provider with no continuation plan.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as a history of British obscenity, Alan Travis, Australian 457 VISA, Bound and Gagged, Brexit, IPPR, NHS, No man's sky, Nobel Peace prize, Prof David Metcalf, the Guardian

August 13, 2016 · 13:20

Media against the Law

When it comes to events within the law, the bulk of the publishers tend to remain in the dark as to what matters and what does not. Which might be fair enough when you consider the fact that they are more and more about numbers in circulation, not about the clarity of reporting. So when I saw certain reports on how there are issues with Hello Games (read: No Mans Sky) and the law, I tend to get curious fast.

There were to instances. The first one was regarding Sky TV. Because the issue was settled, there is not too much official news in play. As far as I was able to tell, from the various sources. We get “The root” of the “secret stupid legal nonsense” is down to Sky’s belief that it owns the word “Sky” in the context in which Hello Games planned to use it”. Can anyone explain to me why any judge would not throw this out of court in an instant?

The fact that this is of course linked to Rupert Murdoch in some way, means that plenty of people are too scared to go against that fossil (I hereby apologise to all fossils who feel offended by their media categorisation)!

In law however, there could have been a case and there was a case and in consideration, beyond the academic parts of Trade Marks law, there was, as I see it never a case. In the case where we see that action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of January 30th 2013 (Case R 2398/2010-4), there are three players.

On one side we have

British Sky Broadcasting Group plc & Sky IP International Ltd

And on the other side there is Skype Ultd.

One issue is and has for ever been, more alike than not. Which is one that Sky versus Skype (hear: Skaip) would win, yet, one could argue that British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd are not alike Skype Ultd in any way. Yet it is the service Class 38 that works in favour of Murdoch again. These are Telecommunication services and as such, there could possibly be a conflict. Of course the non-legal academic mind realises that the Sky services is there for people who contemplate suicide, whilst Skype is about communicating with others. There is no overlap at all (unless you’re talking to your mother in law).

Yes, there is an unfair issue here. Because there is in no way any clear overlap from a consumer point of view, there is as I see it no chance of mistaken service here, but the legal point was made by Sky. It is the issue at [17] where we see “the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services at issue come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings constitutes a likelihood of confusion“, which is unlikely, yet not impossible and as such Skype lost the trial. The support was found from case Laboratorios RTB v OHIM — Giorgio Beverly Hills (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS).

So why bring this up?

You see, there is one part where there is a relevant part in the more likely than not as well as more similar then not. This is however not the case for Hello Games. First of all, this product of service is not telecom, it is a video game. In that regard Rupert Murdoch has a lot less knowledge of video games then Robert Maxwell, you know the other tycoon who took a swim on November 5^th 1991. I know that to be a fact! In defence of Robert Maxwell, he was visionary enough to see that video games had the real future (he was the man behind Mirrorsoft), he would be proven correct less than 5 years after his death.

So when we consider British Sky Broadcasting Group plc. Sky IP International Ltd or Sky, there is absolutely no similarity between the one and the game ‘No Man’s Sky’. That case should have been dismissed of the bat. In addition, if Sky did not start a case against the following movie titles: ‘October Sky’, ‘Fire in the Sky’, ‘Iron Sky’, ‘Island in the Sky’, ‘Castle in the Sky’, ‘Red Sky’, ‘Sky Captain and the world of Tomorrow’, ‘Vanilla Sky’ and ‘Sky High’, can we contemplate that if these cases had not gone to court, the injustice against Hello Games should be trialled for against Sky IP International Ltd?

You see, for Hello Games, the initial case could have been decided against them if the game was called ‘Sky of no man’, this is not the case so the dissimilarity is there. In addition, this is a video game and unless there is a clear sky game ready for the office, I am better of not getting close to it. As I see the likelihood of confusion would have never been a case so I am getting the idea that there is more. Yet, without the court papers there is no way to tell for certain. What is known are some of the facts in play? You see, the part “Too close is determined by whether the relevant consuming public would likely be confused by the second mark“. I can state with 100% certainty that those buying the game will never be confusing the mark of the game, with the mark of a Murdoch corporation.

In addition we can raise the following cases:

Jockey International, Inc v Darren Wilkinson [2010] ATMO 22, where Jockey was sufficiently different from Throttle Jockey and Chris Kingsley v David Scott [2011] ATMO 20, where Rebellion was sufficiently different from Soul Rebellion. As such, Sky should be seen as sufficiently different from ‘No Man’s Sky’. Yet, I will accept that without the full court data elements might be missing from the case. So I am keeping an open mind to some extent.

Now we see that Hello Games is in another situation, yet now on an optional case regarding the feat of patents, or is that the alleged featured use of a patent?

‘Dutch company claims No Man’s Sky Uses Its ‘Superformula’ without permission‘ (at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dutch-company-claims-no-mans-sky-used-patented-superformula-create-its-massive-universe-1571747), the news now three weeks old gives another side of the entire universe. Wherever there is a true innovator, there is a vulture trying to get on the gravy train! In nearly all countries we see the application of it. In Belgium Law we see “De machine is patenteerbaar, evenals het proces van de aanpassing in functie van het draaimoment van de motor of de kracht op de snijkop. (voor zover dit voldoet aan de 4 voorwaarden voor een klassiek octrooi, maar laten we dit even aannemen). De wiskundige formule die gebruikt wordt om deze functie te berekenen niet.” (Translated: A machine can be patented, so can the process of adjustment in function of the rotational moment of the engine on the power of the cutting head, the mathematical equation to calculate this cannot). You see, this is at the heart of the matter, in academic reality you could patent the universe, the methods of how it was conceived was not in addition, as the game is unique, Hello Games now have the copyright, yet not on the formula.

In addition, I need to show you the article by Eurogamer, who did some of the legwork (at http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-21-why-no-mans-sky-fans-are-worried-about-a-patented-superformula), they make a few references, more important is the fact that they got through to a few of the connected parties. Now we get to the gritty part of it. You see, there is orchestration in the wind (not by or through Eurogamer mind you).

Consider the quote Jeroen Sparrow gave Eurogamer, as stated in the article: “Genicap is working on a project to create revolutionary software based on the superformula that can be used likewise by indies and the major game studios. Using the superformula to generate natural objects enables you to create endless varied and original objects such as trees, rocks, beaches, planets and mountains. Currently most of this work is still done manually. We are still in the conceptual phase. We expect to be able to tell you more in autumn“, which is, as I see it a load of bollocks! Consider, that initial publications of teasers of No Mans Sky started in December 2013, it was introduced at the E3 2014, now we see ‘We expect to be able to tell you more in autumn‘, how is this even contemplated to have any kind of value?

You see, part of all this is linked to the patent claim EP1177529 (A1). You see in Patent Law, whenever the first element fails, all subsequent elements fail too.

So consider the first claim: “1. A method of creating a physical form, comprising: programming a computer with a computer application for computer graphics or computer aided design or the generation of physical waveforms, with a representation of the following formula r = 1 1 a · cos m 1 ·φ 4 n 2 ± 1 b · sin m 2 φ 4 n 3 n 1 <img class=”EMIRef” id=”188164907-ib0037″ /> where r is a radius value at an angle φ, selecting values for the parameters a, b; n 1, n 2, n 3, m 1and m 2, at least one of n 1, n 2and n 3and at least one of m 1and m 2being variable; generating a pattern via the computer based on the selected values input into said formula; transforming said generated pattern into a physical form.“, here you might be confused, but you need no math, just plain English “transforming said generated pattern into a physical form“, here is the simple crux. A virtual representation, is not a physical form. A supporting thesis can be found (at https://unfoldingform.wordpress.com/about/), if there is one upside then it would be that this all introduced me to the work of Kris Henning. The abstract quote “a design investigation exploring the transition between the virtual representation and physical fabrication of folded forms” gives the goods: ‘transition between the virtual representation and physical fabrication‘, they are two different dimensions. Whilst we could argue that Jeroen sparrow is finding new ways to fund a tax party and here the quote “transforming said generated pattern into a physical form” does not hold the bacon, because this is not what Hello Games are doing and as such, we could regard Genicap as a simple vulture trying to get scraps from someone who was able to create. You see, Dutch patents are very similar to those in Common Law nations “De vinding moet gaan over een product of productieproces, en je moet kunnen aantonen dat dit technisch kan functioneren. Zo kunnen diensten, ideeën zonder concrete uitwerking, natuurwetenschappelijke theorieën, rekenmethoden en esthetische vormgeving niet beschermd worden door een patent” The invention needs to be on a product or production process and it must be shown that it technically functional, services, ideas without concrete solutions, natural theories, calculations and aesthetic shapes are not protected by a patent (translation), so as we cannot fault Eurogamer for lack of Dutch, plenty of Dutch sources did not give this the attention it needed to have. This case is likely to go nowhere!

So we see the collection of people lacking innovation and applicational genius and trying to weasel in on their flaccid approach of inability (perhaps I am oversimplifying the issue?)

When we look at the final part of the Eurogamer article (which is quite excellent), we see “If Hello Games used our technology, at some stage we will have to get to the table. We have reached out to them but understand they have been busy. We trust that we will be able to discuss this in a normal way“, whilst, as I see it, there is enough to debunk the patent claim, there would still be issues of copyright. Yet, there is an issue there too. For this we need to take a step towards Forbes, who published on May 19th 2014 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2014/05/19/how-much-copyright-protection-should-source-code-get-a-new-court-ruling-reshapes-the-landscape/), where we see “Consider a programmer who writes source code to implement a complex weather forecasting model. Models for weather forecasting are not subject to copyright, but the programmer (or, if the programmer is an employee, his or her company) may nonetheless have an enforceable copyright interest in the specific code written to perform that task“, which actually gets us pretty close to the heart of No Man’s Sky. the mathematical model has no protection (if it was used), but Johan Gielis could have ‘an enforceable copyright interest in the specific code written to perform that task‘, yet that part is stopped, because that part was built from scratch by Hello Games, so even if the superformula is in whole part of No Man’s Sky, it seems to me that the application was re-engineered and as such, Genicap has nothing. Nothing is as I see it should be, because they come up with “the superformula to generate natural objects enables you to create endless varied and original objects such as trees, rocks, beaches, planets and mountains. Currently most of this work is still done manually. We are still in the conceptual phase“, whilst a demo has been visible for close to two years? I reckon that they were asleep at the wheel (possible trying to come up with a mathematical formula to grow mentioned wheel).

In the end, Hello Games is growing an industry in a direction no one foresaw, the even better part is that I blogged an additional application for this solution well over 6 months ago implies that I surpassed Genicap regarding any superformula (without ever seeing it), even before they went into some conceptual stage, I found it another application. So what does that tell us about Genicap and Jeroen Sparrow?

So, be like me and enjoy playing No Man’s Sky (and thanking Hello games for coming up with a brilliant game).

1 Comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Case R 2398/2010-4, Chris Kingsley v David Scott [2011] ATMO 20, EP1177529 (A1), Eurogamer, Genicap, Hello Games, Inc v Darren Wilkinson [2010] ATMO 22, Jeroen Sparrow, Jockey International, Johan Gielis, Laboratorios RTB v OHIM — Giorgio Beverly Hills (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS), Mirrorsoft, No man's sky, Robert Maxwell, Sky, Sky IP International Ltd, Skype Ultd

July 5, 2016 · 17:49

Democracies are decided through Income

It has been a week, and there is a mountain of events evolving, many all about how a second referendum is needed and in addition to that, the amount of issues that are now surfacing. First we need to take a look at the valid parts. A valid part was seen on Sunday (at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jul/03/parliament-must-decide-whether-or-not-to-leave-the-eu-say-lawyers), where we see ‘Law firm says article 50 cannot be triggered without full debate and vote by parliament‘, which is fair enough. Let’s face it, the people have voted on what they wanted, but in reality, Any Referendum is not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results. Yet, for the Government to ignore such a massive size of a population seems to be a weird approach to democracy. Does the Law firm have a case? The quote “A prominent law firm is taking pre-emptive legal action against the government, following the EU referendum result, to try to ensure article 50 is not triggered without an act of parliament“, which is fair enough, yet this is followed by “on behalf of an anonymous group of clients, solicitors at Mishcon de Reya have been in contact with government lawyers to seek assurances over the process, and plan to pursue it through the courts if they are not satisfied“. I wonder who these ‘so called’ anonymous clients are, perhaps the banks who are now freaking out?

Yet, issues aside, how strong is this case?

First, the current government called for the referendum. Those who sit in the House of Commons called for the referendum and 72.2% of the people reacted and voted, in the end 51.89% were in favour of Brexit!

Now, we see all these new groups, all trying to create mayhem, all crying like the little bitches they are. Boo hoo hoo, so unfair, we want a second vote! It is utterly pathetic. Yet, there are a few issues that should not be ignored. The main reasons this all got started is that certain players took a stand. First there is Nigel Farage who started it and is now resigning as UKIP Leader, he apparently wants his life back. We can argue whether we have pressure issues. Perhaps I should step in as the new leader of UKIP, although, I am and will remain a Conservative. I just have an issue with people who desert when the actual work needs to be done. Second is Boris Johnson, one of the main players in Brexit, he too now seems to be turning his back on the entire process. Yet in all this the votes are still done and many of them were either Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and pretty much all members of UKIP. The issues is shown all over the UK. Work must now be done, yet we see a shift, we suddenly see the issues rise after the vote. Is it not interesting how we are all getting played?

Remember the voices of Grexit, how parties were all considering Grexit and how we were being played, only to learn well over a year later that expulsion from the EU was never an option, only voluntary exit is an option! Now that the UK decided to exit it voluntary, we see a massive wave of business people and people in the financial and legal industry making things near impossible to continue. No matter how we see these facts, the issue raised by the solicitors at Mishcon de Reya remains valid. Yet, is it not interesting how none of this was clearly stated all over the place before the vote? Is it not interesting that the media seems to have broomed that interesting part under the nearest rug?

Now consider the quote “The outcome of the referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future prime minister to invoke article 50 without the approval of parliament is unlawful“, is it not interesting how that part is equally not brought to light before the vote? It seems to me that the people of England have been played. A vote, whilst the players knew that the referendum was not even the beginning to the change. We always knew that there was more in play and as such the Brexit path was always going to take some time, yet to what extent should we see the path that the UK faces?

Now, I regard the part we see from Mishcon de Reya to be possibly very valid. Yet is that in other cases equally so? In opposition there is the article ‘Nick Clegg calls for general election before article 50 is activated’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/03/nick-clegg-general-election-article-50-activated-eu-referendum). My initial question becomes “Wasn’t he some politician in days gone past?” And of course, I would be right, it is the former leader of the Lib Dems, not Tim Farron mind you, who is now calling for an election before Article 50 is enacted. The quote “Our country is in a tailspin. An election of a new parliament in which MPs act responsibly to manage our historic divorce from the EU is the only way to forge some order out of the present chaos” gives the impression that we are dealing with some version of Captain Caveman. Consider the quote ‘a new parliament in which MPs act responsibly‘, so is there something wrong with the current parliament? Then we get the quote “before people have had an opportunity to cast a judgment on what life would actually look like outside the EU would be deeply undemocratic“. Eh, was that not what the referendum was all about? People made the vote. Perhaps Nick is now getting active because his daddy was the Chairman of a bank? Perhaps the banks are truly getting scared of the impact Brexit is starting to have on the Dollar and the Dow? This is perhaps speculation on my side, but only to a small degree.

In that regard all the elements are taking turns for the comical. When we see in addition Tony Blair making the quote “for as long as it takes to get an idea of how the other side looks”, I wonder how long parliament reconvened and started re-elections when the UK had WW1 and WW2 to consider. It seems that the players who were not ready to believe the danger that an irresponsible EU had been bringing that the people have had enough and now they are all reconvening for the friends they have in the banks, their friends in big business. As I see it, a wave of people panicking, all in fear of losing the Status Quo, a clear fear that was given in many occasions and the strongest by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England in his presentation to the House of Lords. Too many people complacent on the Status Quo, relying on people not wanting change, now all screaming bloody murder!

That is not the scenario we can afford and it is one that many in the financial industry are hoping for, because the EU cannot be drained as much and it will stop soon thereafter when the EU buckles. A scenario, with Frexit on the horizon that might not be avoided.

Yet there is another item to link here. It is shown in the article discussing the departure of Nigel Farage (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jul/04/the-guardian-view-on-nigel-farages-resignation-an-unserious-man-but-a-serious-party), you see the quote given in there is “Yet they never once said what leaving would actually look like. They mocked anyone who expressed concerns“, yes, that is true, mainly because nobody had a clue what would be the result. The presentation at the House of Lords by Mark Carney already implied it. There was no way of knowing and it had never been done before. Yet in all of that the UK stood in a better place than France will be. The UK had remained with the Pound, so this sterling currency has the ability to bounce back fast and remain sterling in more than one way. The article than starts to rely on what I regard to be intentional miscommunication. An opinion article devoid of identity, an editorial, so can we state now that it is Katharine Viner who is now intentionally misdirecting the audience? You see the quote “After 23 June it can no longer parrot the old cry that everything will be better if we are out of Europe. We are out of Europe. So what does Ukip stand for now?“, You see, there is still a likely truth that leaving the EU will hold better results down the line for the UK, but not immediate, that was ALWAYS a given! And the UK is not ‘out of Europe’, it is now merely in the process of seceding from the EU, which is another matter entirely. This path will take time and there are unknowns. It is likely that if played right the UKIP could grow massively, but that requires Nigel’s A-game, a part he is not playing and perhaps his knowledge on how to play an A-game is equally a mystery to him, I do not know.

What I do know is that the Guardian identity less is equally contemptible as they make Nigel Farage out to be, or Boris Johnson for that matter. What is interesting is the quote at the very end, there is a ring of truth in there, but not one the ‘editorial’ is trying to imbue. The quote “If the next Ukip leader possesses the seriousness that Mr Farage ultimately lacked, the consequences could be profound and deeply worrying“, why is that?

You see, nationalism is often treated as a dirty word, but is that true? You see one issue the EU pushed was some open border policy hoping that a blending of cultures would all make it one grey, one shade of ‘whatever’, large corporations were banking on it as they pushed debts through every European nation through political representation. Yet, the UK is and should be a proud nation, sometimes proud for the wrong reasons or in the wrong light of day, but it has a genuine right to pride, as does France, Germany and Italy. The people behind the screens forgot about that and the pushback is massive in all 4 nations. Frexit could be next. The NY Times is saying it won’t be so (at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/why-frexit-wont-happen.html), didn’t they state the same about Brexit? You see, I am not certain it will happen, but it is a lot more realistic than Brexit was. The French population that has had enough of the EU has surpassed 61%, making it a strong majority at present. That is only the population of France, the power players are now in a direct confrontation with Germany. Any talks between France and Germany have been problematic to say the least in the past, but that was with the UK as a stabilising element, without the UK those two will come to blow sooner rather than later and Italy could be the wildcard here too. Unless it finds levels of stability the EU talks will take an interesting dimension soon enough.

There is one element that makes the NY Times the punching hammer to take notice of. The quote “Now comes the naked truth: For the past 10 years, the European Union has failed to deliver on the main objective it was set up to achieve: shielding its citizens from insecurity. Over the past few days, European leaders, in a state of shock, have hastily identified three priorities on which to focus if they want to save their union: security, migration and economic growth“, it is part of the issues that drove Brexit. Not immigration, not racism, but the realisation that the EU is not delivering, whilst its ECB is stimulating national governmental debts by spending trillions. With ‘investors’ looking towards Mario Draghi on opening new stimulus packages, we all need to wonder why is allowed to take this path. It appears that banks are back in risk taking mode, the ECB is ready to spend another trillion (exact amount is actually not known), yet no one is asking the questions that need to be asked, the reason that got us to Brexit and will soon push forward Frexit stronger and stronger. The mere inability to properly budget within governments and Mario Draghi playing ‘Spending Clause’ in July should worry the population of the EU at large.

The Guardian editorial decided not to take any of that on board, mainly because bashing Farage is still the easiest job to do and the last thing they want is to illuminate that democracy is not set to the most votes, it is set to who has the most influential income to push the votes of others, which was never any form of democracy, not in my book at least.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Boris Johnson, Brexit, Conservatives, Dow, ECB, EU Article 50, France, Frane, Germany, Governor of the Bank of England, Grexit, House of Commons, House of lords, Italy, Katherine Viner, Labour, Lib Dems, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, Mishcon de Reya, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, NY Times, the Guardian, Tim Farron, Tony Blair, UK Parliament, UKIP

June 30, 2016 · 21:00

Run Michael Run!

Our David met Goliath, ehh, I meant Brexit and took a dive. He did not slay the Brexit, but that in itself was no real reason to quit. Let’s face it, the people are losing more and more hope regarding the validity of a united Europe. The one issue that requires addressing is wholeheartedly ignored all over Europe. Now, we see all over Europe messages like “the spectre of a “Frexit” now hangs over France” (at http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/frexit-to-be-major-issue-in-french-2017-presidential-campaign-1.2703237). Which is not even the most important part. Nexit seems to have been avoided when we see “A narrow majority of 53 percent of Dutch voters are against holding a referendum on whether or not the Netherlands should stay in the European Union” (at http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/06/27/dutch-narrowly-nexit-70-low-educated-favor/), which is only marginally good for Europe. You see, the issue that drives these exits are not being dealt with. Frexit remains an issue as the majority in Fr4nace is now in Favour of a referendum, that majority is surpassing the 60% line. Nexit remains an issue as the far right party PVV is steering the same course as UKIP. Yet there is one difference here. The PVV is currently the largest party, it is actually larger than Dutch Labour (PvdA) and Dutch ‘conservatives’ (CDA) combined. The only part is that what might be regarded as ‘Dutch Liberal Democrats’ (VVD) is in second place and they can unite with either PvdA or CDA to stop the PVV party led by Geert Wilders. So when it comes to Nexit, there is a larger danger as PVV is all in favour and there is a lot of support within the constituency of the other parties too. Even as the media is ‘hiding’ it behind the fact that low educated people are in favour of leaving the EU, the truth is that most politicians are too cowardly to speak out against the gross overspending of Mario Draghi in addition to most of these governments remaining unable to get their budgets in order. I personally regard this as the number one fear that people have. The next generation is handed a debt of too many trillions of Euros. Grexit is in no way the main reason, the wrong actions that have ruled a non-Grexit is the other reason people want out of the EU, but they do not seem to blame the Greeks, only the non-acts by all parties that should have decided to push Greece out of the EU and find a way outside of it to support growth and stabilisation. Now, that path is no longer realistic and the masses are all upset of non-actions.

These elements will all affect the UK. Even now as we see “Deutsche Bank AG is the riskiest financial institution in the world as a potential source of external shocks to the financial system, according to the International Monetary Fund” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services/deutsche-riskiest-bank-in-the-world-imf/news-story/4ed1043ffdf76cb26324b531dd0f3171), certain events that have not been properly dealt with will all hit the UK one way or another. Now that the German economy is getting a downgrade, which the IMF states is due to Brexit, but that is not entirely correct!

You see the quote “Britain is an important trade partner for Germany, and significant changes in the economic relationship between the two countries will have repercussions for Germany” is one we could have expected, yet the falsehood of it is also a given. You see Germany has every option to broker an immediate deal with the UK. But the banking powers are now all about ‘procedures‘ and ‘leaving the EU‘, which sounds correct, but let’s not forget that these parties have looked at an optional Grexit for 3 years, is it not weird that any EU exit is not properly addressed? When you consider that, then consider why we suddenly get these new Grexit fears, fears that are considering the voluntary need of an exit would be unfounded.

In this primordial mess we see Michael Gove moving towards the leadership!

This is where I am in favour of Michael Gove taking leadership. We can see in the first part that Boris Johnson has his own agenda, which could be fair enough, but it is important to unite all the conservatives for whatever comes next, it is my personal view that Boris Johnson will not be the man to get that done. In another light we could conclude that Theresa May would not be the right choice either. Her dealing in the Abu Qatada case is one. I raised a few issues in my article ‘Humanitarian Law v National security‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/03/10/humanitarian-law-v-national-security/), in addition I will be the first one to state that this is not all on Theresa May and that the office of Dame Stella Rimington (MI-5) needs to take a truckload of the errors involved, his entry on a forged passport happened on her watch. For me the strongest issues were shown in 2014 (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/02/theresa-may-political-correctness-rotherham-abuse), the Rotherham scandal left its mark, the entire matter as blamed on “institutionalised political correctness” leaves us with a nasty aftertaste, the fact that too many sides that are non-prosecuted will stain (illogically and wrongfully) the coat of Theresa May and as such, she would not have the gravitas she would need to be a successful leader of the Conservative party.

Michael Gove gave himself a boost with the letter that the Independent printed. His 1500 word essay (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-michael-goves-full-statement-on-why-he-is-backing-brexit-a6886221.html) gave the people something to think about. I reckon that the well thought actions of Michael Gove, with the added distinction of Mark Carney could be what the UK needs to move forward faster. I believe that the indecisiveness of the other players outside of the UK will only give more strength to these two power players. The UK must move forward and the Conservatives are still governing. This is unlikely to change as Jeremy Corbyn is now contested as leader as we see Angela Eagle picking up the momentum to remove Jeremy Corbyn. As a conservative I will not mind, you see, whomever ends up in charge of Labour, the Conservatives will end up being in a better position either way, the division that these two players bring to the Labour party will be equally a blessing for Tim Farron, the Lib Dems could profit of this infighting in no small way. Tim Farron has in my view a few other issues to deal with, but those would shrink if he can grow his party fast enough.

This gets us back to my Conservative party, likely under leadership of Michael Gove. Unity is for all parties a need and there is a mess with Brexit to deal with, which is exactly why I think that Tim Farron’s call to undo Brexit is a lot more dangerous, especially as 3 nations are now considering and aiming to secede from the EU at present. Michael Gove is in my view the strongest runner for the conservatives at present. Yet, we must accept that there are a few flaws in that case. Even if we ignore the popularised expression ‘50 shades of Gove‘, we should not ignore the Financial Times (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca079702-392d-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html#axzz4D3Y8IePA), where we see “a slogan without substance is a flimsy platform for future success“, which is true when it is just a slogan, a 1500 word essay is another matter. From that point of view, Michael Gove is pretty much the only contender left standing. The quote the FT has at the start “One thing has become clear over the course of the UK’s referendum campaign, and even clearer since the Brexit vote: no matter how you define leadership, this isn’t it” is equally matter for debate. It could apply to the callously shabby way Boris Johnson took it, yet in all that Michael Gove gave clear reasoning. The part that is equally interesting is the fact that the Financial Times did not dig into the real pain the UK people had, by not leading that part, we got to the place we are now. The FT also states “Plenty of companies are now scrambling to adjust their plans because of the unexpected outcome. They are guilty of a lack of foresight“, which is true, but it is equally the arrogant consequence of anticipated outcome through the bullying of some of the players. One example was Citibank and how they would ‘move’ operations if Brexit became a reality (at http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/09/citigroup-warns-staff-of-brexit-risk-to-uk-operations-report.html), in my view I state: ‘Well James Bardrick, you got you’re Brexit, so would you kindly fuck off towards Germany, France or the Netherlands!‘ and please do so by the end of next week!

You know, I reckon that they will remeasure their actions, because Frexit is still a possibility Nexit is not definitely averted and the Deutsche Bank as well as the German economy would impact whatever you shift towards Germany. In addition, the changes in India and certain shifts all over Asia Pacific requires a stability foundation, which means that Citibank definitely requires to remain strong in the UK. If not for what is, than certainly for what might be. If I am correct (4 out of 4 would be nice), than there is a strong chance that the M&M team (Michael Gove and Mark Carney) could propel the UK positive ahead of schedule, meaning that Citibank would cut itself in the fingers in more than one way. In addition, and pardon my French, Citibank could end up being the bitch of Natixis in France, a very French way of banking I might add. Giving rise in more than one way that Citibank could lose momentum when it leaves UK operations, letting other banks move in and making the Citibank lose additional market share, which seems like such an ego based error to make.

All in all we can go for the slogan ‘Run Michael Run‘, looking towards better times, not immediate mind you, but possibly faster than we thought possible, the IMF papers regarding France give weight to that, providing the UK, more specifically if the Rt Hon Hugo Swire can get a few trade irons ready for agreement with France, the Netherlands and Germany. If he pulls this of, the UK is on a first leg towards true economic restoration, with the absence of Mario Draghi’s overspending nature.

In the end these are elements that matter, but strongest of all is to address the people who feel that they have been left out in the cold by Europe. National pride is only a first step, momentum will be gained by achieving results, in that Mark Carney remains correct, these steps come with a large risk, whether it is too large is for all players actually remains an unknown for now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Abu Qatada, Angela Eagle, Boris Johnson, Brexit, CDA, Citibank, Dame Stella Rimington, David Cameron, Deutsche Bank AG, Eu, Financial Times, Frexit, Geert Wilders, Grexit, Hugo Swire, Humanitarian Law v National security, IMF, James Bardrick, Jeremy Corbyn, Lib Dems, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, MI-5, Michael Gove, Natixis, Netherlands, Nexit, PVV, Rotherham scandal, Rt Hon Hugo Swire, Theresa May, Tim Farron, UK, UKIP, VVD

June 23, 2016 · 19:54

On the day of voting

It is the day of the referendum and as is to be expected, the final views are given towards either Brexit or Bremain. In this we need to look at ‘yesterday’s news’ as given (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/22/nato-chief-says-uk-staying-in-the-eu-is-key-to-fighting-terrorism), we see the title ‘Nato chief says UK staying in the EU is key to fighting terrorism‘, to that my initial response is: “Is that so?” It is the quote “What I can do is tell you what matters for Nato, and a strong UK in a strong Europe is good for the UK and it’s good for Nato, because we are faced with unprecedented security challenges, with terrorism, with instability and an unpredictable security environment, and a fragmented Europe will add to instability and unpredictability“, the quote reads nice, but how correct is it? Perhaps correct is not even the right word here, as the quote is a correct one. The issue that Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general is dancing around is seen in: ‘a strong UK in a strong Europe is good for the UK‘ as well as ‘a fragmented Europe will add to instability and unpredictability‘. You see that is already happening at present. The issue that has been on the table from the beginning is what I personally regard is the unacceptable amount of overspending and feigned credit limits, where the people have quite literally ended up with nothing to show for. In the second, there is the matter of Greece. Mind you, this is not about blaming Greece, this is about the fact that hard decisions should have been made 3 years ago, but Europe, and within that its own NATO were all about the status quo and the internal deception that if you ignore it, it goes away! That has not resolved in any resolution. Mario Draghi has set forth spending well over a trillion with what we can see, nothing to show for, only a weighted regression towards the unstable extreme. That can be shown in equal ease as we see that the trillions in overspending have not resulted in any positive light, only in slowly moving backwards, at the expense of…what exactly?

Well, we can argue that is equally at the expense of a more fragmented and weaker Europe. This is exactly the issue Mark Carney left me (in all honesty less towards Brexit and more towards Bremain), but the question, can we afford these unacceptable levels of spending and force European budgeting? That is something Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England cannot guarantee (which in all fairness he can’t and that does not reflect negatively on him), which is in my view the main reason why Brexit gained the momentum it needed.

The issue ‘add to instability and unpredictability‘ is equally an issue, not because of Brexit, but because of the EU, which in heart is trying to remain a negotiating party, even after we have seen too many examples where this is not leading to anything. As evidence I would like to call towards Turkey. The latest event (at http://www.dw.com/en/turkey-blocks-german-delegation-airbase-trip-over-armenian-genocide-row/a-19349172), where a historic event of 1915 is cause to block a German delegation. The amount of unacceptable acts by Turkey, whilst making all kinds of demands have left more than one party in a state of concern, but the EU wants to be seen as the ‘talking party’, not a decision maker in sight. Even if we ignore this event, the acts that Turkey has shown in regards towards refugee smuggling as well as the downing of the Russian Jet, based on clear evidence that makes the act in light of Islamic State issues utterly unacceptable, but the European Community is not speaking out. At best it is cautiously whispering. How is that contributing to ‘stability and predictability?‘ As I personally see it: it is not and it will not!

So the two elements in this NATO debacle are now already debunked and Bremain would not have made any difference. Now we get to Whopper dealer #2. Here we see France’s president, François Hollande making the statement that has been debunked long ago. The quote “There’s a very serious risk for the United Kingdom not to be able to access the common market and … the European economic area any more“. Do you actually think that ANY, I say again ANY party will be unwilling to commercially deal with the UK? Hah! I say. For example. If France holds true word and stops for example the commerce of French Wine, French Cheese and a few more items. It would lighten up the Cheese markets of the Netherlands and Belgium in addition there would be a massive growth opportunity for German and perhaps even Hungarian wines, whilst France’s commercial position shrinks from 6^th to 11^th on the world list of exports (based on 2015 estimates and my estimated French drop), falling below Belgium. So how is his statement folly? It is simple: it is a buyers’ market and the UK still wants to buy, providing it can sell too. Making them an interesting partner for all of Western Europe, especially as the UK imports more than it exports. It imported 629 million, whilst only exporting 465 million (source: Trade statistics for international business development), so a very welcome trading partner for every nation willing to strike a deal. Do you think for one moment that France could even chance to lose these levels of business? I personally think that this is not even a scaremongering quote, it is one made in infinite fear of the upcoming Frexit referendum which is a certain when Brexit happens. It is also one that will end the presidency of Francois Hollande, which is pretty much a given at present. Only now do we see more newscasts take the Frexit chance more seriously, almost two years after I predicted the danger and the chance of it. It is true that only Marine Le Penn is voicing this promise, but it is clear that too many French are demanding a French referendum, none of the French parties can avoid a French referendum at present, making the statement Francois Hollande makes even less valuable and more questionable.

The article has a few more ‘gems’ to throw against Bremain, but I think a clear point has been made. Those who are evangelising the EU, have been and remain to be unable and unwilling to address the flaws the EU has. An unaccountable part that refuses to stop wasting resources and funds, only to satisfy the status quo. They had 6 months to make strong changes here and nothing got done, so as it is now in the final hours we see iteration of events and iterations of claims that are being made on both sides of the isle, yet now it is more and more important that the Bremain side shows strength. One side that did that was the EU via Jens Stoltenberg and as I personally see it, it failed miserably!

It would be equally fair to have a go at Brexit now and I am all for fairness. Yet, I am a little biased, so bear with me (pun intended)! We see that David Cameron is having a go at his previous buddy Mickey Gove, or as non-intimi call him: the Right Honourable Michael Gove, Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/22/cameron-gove-has-lost-it-in-comparing-anti-brexit-economists-to-nazi-experts). Here we see the important quote “We have to be careful about historical comparisons, but Albert Einstein during the 1930s was denounced by the German authorities for being wrong and his theories were denounced and one of the reasons, of course, he was denounced was because he was Jewish,” Gove said. “They got 100 German scientists in the pay of the government to say that he was wrong and Einstein said, ‘Look, if I was wrong, one would have been enough.’”, which is slightly awkward. Not because he is either right or wrong, but because any reference to any Nazi event tends to get emotional backlash. What he is questioning is what I have questioned. The economic ‘experts’ making the wildest claims are partially those same experts that have been wrongly forecasting the economy again and again. A system of overoptimistic forecasting which follows spending (often too high), after which we see cycles of managed bad news. This has been happening all over Europe, which is why there are many trillions of debt. These experts will not be trusted in any way, shape or form as they require the continuation of the EU (if they want to continue their gravy train) and as such, their views would be skewed and weighted.

What is interesting that Europe’s irresponsible overspending does not make it on either table, which remains at the heart of the matter as I see it! I believe it to be a balancing seesaw attempt to keep the US Dollar afloat, because when the Euro goes, the US Dollar will find itself in a reweighted status, one that is unlikely to be anything but disastrous for the US and for those relying on its stability.

To those deciding to vote today. To you I state: ‘Do what you honestly believe is the best for you, your family and England! No matter how you feel at present, find the speech Mark Carney gave to the House of Lords and read that before you vote. It is a true and honest recital, he mentions the risks England faces and those risks are real. The question becomes, are those risks worse than the current irresponsible acts by the massively overspending EU politicians? If the answer to that is Yes, than Bremain is your likely voice, if you feel that it is ‘no’, the fact that the current irresponsible acts by the EU politicians spending too much again and again is indeed the biggest danger, then Brexit becomes your path!‘

I have no voice in this, I have tried to give you my honest view in this. To show insight whenever and where ever I could. Now it is up to the voters and the results will be seen and felt all over the world from tomorrow onwards.

Mark Carney Testimonial in the House of Lords

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Bremain, Brtexit, David Cameron, François Hollande, Germany, Greece, Jens Stoltenberg, Marine Le Penn, Mario Draghi, Michael Gove, NATO, Turkey

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives