Category Archives: Law

December 13, 2015 · 21:50

It really is Cricket

I just got hit by news from last Friday. It is not about Marine Le Pen, or about the Russian tour that could hit Turkey soon enough, or even anything like a video game. No, this is me trying to plug an idea that allows us to ‘use’ the BBC to save an industry for no other reason that our love of a game. You see nature tends to hit everywhere, it tends to hit the just and unjust alike, such is the premise of nature and when nature hits there will always be a victim.

So, here I am reaching out to all those who love Cricket to make a real difference.

For this we might need the consent and support of Yogita Limaye, who brought it to my attention. In all this I want to make certain the banks cannot move in and take away a legacy, for them to move in and ‘offer’ a deal that will change the game. No, I am here to plea with you to make a difference.

So what do I have in mind? For this you need to watch the small article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35070666), you see floods have ended a proud event. The production of Cricket bats. Now, the industry can recover but it will take decades to do that. Yes, we can watch and wait and see how some other brands move forwards and up the price, some people will never be able to afford that. I might have had an English Willow bat once, but not all can afford it. So this article got to me. An industry given a massive body blow through nature, it happens!

The man is pleading whether there are options of a 0% loan from banks so that the industry can be revitalised. I am going one better (in light of many banks not being that trustworthy).

What if we had a brown gold scheme, one with a difference?

Would that help?

In my view I am appealing to all the cricket fans in the world. We are millions! So what if we see if we can keep Cricket alive in a place in the world where for them Cricket is more important that Soccer is to the UK or Rugby to Australia and New Zealand? What if we make our own investment?

Now, be aware that this is an investment with a danger, you could lose all your money, but the price you are about to lose is no more than the purchase of a Willow Sapling. A sapling gets placed and as the article showed you, it will take 30 years for it to mature. You reward would be a genuine Jammu and Kashmir bat (plus the cost of shipping). Perhaps an investment present for your son or grandson, something that made a difference. Is that such a far-fetched idea?

The banks will be out of bounds and we all will have done something for the spirit of Cricket, what a thought.

So, is this idea far-fetched? I do not believe this to be the case. By buying a sapling now, we support the game, we support a green earth and we support an industry. Yes, it is in India and there should be plenty of people in India doing this, but why leave it to others? To buy a sapling for no other reason than our love of the game. Knowing that we gave support to families who have been working on the Cricket legacy for generations, that is something worthy to settle a few coins for, isn’t it?

Now, how to proceed forward? Well that is easier said than done. You see, I am an honest person, but you do not know that and the world is full of people claiming to be of good spirit, so as I see it, why not let the person who alerted us to all this make that start. I reckon most cricket fans will have enough faith in Yogita Limaye if she sets this up and appeals through the BBC will only rally the lovers of Cricket even more.

Now at the end of 2015, we see one more act to show the greed driven industry that greed is not the way and that an industry can be saved without resorting to exploitation. The goal as I see it will be 30,000 saplings. It will not be the overnight drive to restoring bat production, but it will be the helping hand that should ensure long term security.

So how safe is this? Well this is harder to predict. You see nothing is without danger and nature can be a spiteful and whimsy mistress to say the least. So, if you are tight in the budget, you should not do anything, the question becomes how much is needed and donating a sapling might not be the drain on the pocket and will be a restoring factor in karma and the goodwill should be good for the soul.

In the end, this might be just the crazy idea of a blogger who has a passion for Cricket, but aren’t the crazy ones those who set the first movement that makes a real change? I do not have all the answers, just a small crazy thought to give support to those behind the game. You see, the world isn’t all about some risk reward concept. I do not see the issue of high risk and earnings. I see an option to support my game and if it all works out, someone will end up with a nice cricket bat (I expect to be dead in 30 years).

So in that regard, the investment option, when considering the Time Horizon makes it a bad choice (for me), because the time that I have my investment in there will outreach my time to remain alive and I can’t take my Cricket bat with me where I am going to go.

The element of Bankroll is when we consider the options of Risk Tolerance, when I look at this, I expect my loss to be 100%; does that make it charity? No, because I am doing this for one element of Cricket, plain and simple. I could argue that I am making a really bad investment if profit is my business and we know from Wall Street that this is not illegal, they are not making any money out of this and I can really love that idea. We are not looking at leveraged trading, as some industries rely on losses that could exceed the investment, I (and those joining me) are only investing on the purchase of a sapling. Depending on the setup, we will buy an expensive sapling (to allow for maintenance), but in the end, our investment is brown gold, the making of a bat. Now those who have one look at your bat and consider the thought ‘My dad sponsored the tree that got me this bat‘, how awesome would it be when that is really the case!

I have no kids to leave it to, I will not be around to see the bat be made, and I am merely offering a thought where an industry in Jammu and Kashmir will not be drowned out, were we aid it to survive past a flood.

What will you do? Perhaps the better question is, if your sport got hit to this extent, what would you be willing to do? That is the karma enhancing question behind all this, for the simple reason that governments can no longer afford to do certain things, some governments were never willing to do anything and the commercial world only moves to the waves of profit and ROI, options never good for any sport unless it profits from mainstream advertisements and even then they will only move when it truly benefits them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as Australia, BBC, Cricket, Cricket Bat, English Willow, India, Jammu and Kashmir, New Zealand, Risk Tolerance, Time Horizon, UK, United Kingdom, Willow, Yogita Limaye

December 10, 2015 · 20:49

Defining progress, a deadly process

Something really dangerous was announced today. The Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/09/council-tenants-lose-lifetime-right-to-live-in-property) gives us: ‘Council tenants lose lifetime right to live in property‘, which in itself might not have been a bad thing, yet the text “new secure tenancies with local authorities forced to review contract at end of term” might be a lot more dangerous than people are realising at present. In this I am taking a rare position, which is in support of labour. Now, it might very well be that we are both doing it for different reasons. I agree with David Cameron who stated at the time: “There is a question mark about whether, in future, we should be asking when you are given a council home, is it for a fixed period? Because maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won’t need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector”, which is fine. I will not oppose that, yet instead of making the council tenancies linked to an income with a grace period, setting them to 5 years for all will give huge problems (not just logistics) down the line. In equal measure (which was my issue) is that these temporary tenancies could open up the door to hungry developers to sneakily move in and grow their influence and take over block by block. There have been too many stories (many of them not confirmed) where property developers have had too much influence in areas, not just in the UK. With the greater London area in so much turmoil, adding the dangers of diminished tenancy, those dangers will grow and grow. The problem here is that by the time people act and stop certain acts from being done, too much danger has been imposed to the people who used to live there. So I have an issue with this approach. It is clear that changes are needed, even from the governmental standpoint to grow its own portfolio of affordable housing, but this is not one of those moments as I personally see it. To emphasize on this danger I am taking a look back at the past, the year that Windows 95 became a hot topic of discussion, some regard windows as what was on a PC, but when you look through an actual window, those people in Birmingham got a little more than they bargained for. The article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/behind-the-birmingham-scandal-1609640.html) gives us the dangers that could become a reality again. The quote “This year, the Birmingham urban renewal budget was £38m – for both public and private housing. The problem of matching supply and demand is complicated by the latest variation in housing legislation. Anyone who applies for a grant – on a statutory form – must receive a response from the council within six months. The Government’s object was to take the initiative for urban regeneration out of the hands of councils and their professional planners. The result was a free-for- all in which the self-confident, the articulate (and invariably the prosperous) went to the head of the queue and monopolised the scarce resources” has a front seat here. So Birmingham ended up having two problems. An abundant amount of Ashton Villa fans being the first, the second one was that the brass and the articulate got to have a free go at the Birmingham Piggy Bank. The biggest fear is not the issues that have happened, but the schemes that cannot be stopped because they are still legally valid, so to say, the options that the government did not prepare for. Is that a valid fear? That is the question that matters and my answer is ‘Yes!’. You see, until 2009 we never knew that almost Draconian law would be required to keep bankers in their place, soon we will learn in equally drastic way that tenants are placed in immediate danger, yet with people and housing the problem becomes a lot more pressing and this new 5 year tenancy limit will soon become the danger because of something a member of parliament ‘overlooked’, which is why I side with Labour this one time.

In my view, that danger could have been thwarted by offering the following

A 5 year extension if no equal alternative would be available.
The clear side rule that the 5 year tenancy becomes active when the income has risen more than 30% in the last 3 years (which would still give that person access to rule 1).
An option to become the home owner, which must go to the home owner first and must be public in the second (no under the table deals for developers).

Yet when we see the quote “The new legislation forces councils to offer all new tenants contracts of between two and five years. At the end of the fixed term, local authorities will have to carry out a review of the tenant’s circumstance, and decide whether to grant a new tenancy, move the tenant into another more appropriate social rented property, or terminate the tenancy” is that not what is on the table at present?

You see linked to all this is one part that gives a little credit to Labour, specifically to Shadow Housing minister John Healey. The Financial Times reported “The national auditor is considering whether to investigate the government’s programme of subsidies for home ownership, after Labour raised concerns that it is a waste of public money” (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05703522-9dc7-11e5-b45d-4812f209f861.html#axzz3tuDm7ySX). You see, there is my issue to some extent, in light of the tenancy ruling point’s one and two always made sense, there is no argument here. My issue is that ‘buy to own’ is noble in thought, but as I see it, it is a shadowy entrance point for developers to quietly sneak in and start acquiring the area. Yes it take a fair bit of money, but the returns once the plot is complete is too massive to ignore. In my view this was the option that opened doors we tend to ignore.

There are good guys in this field, we will not deny that, but for every 5 good guys there is one that is a lot shadier than we bargained for. What happens when the overly positive calculations get some of these people to consider a BTL (Buy To Let) option, only to see in year 6 (or a little earlier) that the yields are worse than imagined, when these are ‘sold’ through, who picks up the bonus parts and who got the misrepresented losses invoiced?

They might seem like a different thing, but they are not. This is why I mentioned the issues in the same way I mentioned the Birmingham 1995 event. I believe that unless the legislation is a lot stronger here, the dangers become that these social places become reaping fields for ‘entrepreneurial’ (read exploitative) commerce and the people who always relied on a safe place to sleep will end up having no place at all.

This is where the road between me and Labour differs. You see shadow housing minister John Healey wrote to Sir Amyas Morse, The National Audit Office auditor general “a short-term windfall for builders and buyers at a long-term cost to the taxpayer”, a part I do not completely agree with. I think that the underlying text is “a short-term windfall for builders and buyers at a long-term cost to the taxpayer, which will transfer to developers at a massive loss to both the Treasury and the tax system as a whole”, which is not the same. I agree if someone states that it is my speculation and that John Healey does not go into speculation. To that person I state ‘You are correct, yet in equal measure that legislation should have been intensely tested for optional shortcomings towards developers and exploiters, has that been done?‘ It is my firm believe that it is not. We might all agree that this is not what legislation is about, yet legislation is about setting safety moments and a clear denial of transfer of ownership or a limit to the options any developers has in councils. A side we saw exposed by Oliver Wainwright (at http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities) in: ‘The truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities‘, you see, personally I am not convinced that this has been addressed. It is even possible that certain councils are even more toothless than they were a year ago and that is a bad thing. When you look at the article, take another look at the image with the caption ‘A scale model of London on show at this year’s Mipim international real estate fair in Cannes‘, you think that they gave a second glance at the tens of thousands of pounds that this scale model costs? The returns on that invoice are so massive it is a mere drop on a hot plate. In that environment the Conservatives changed lifetime tenancy. I agree that something had to be done, but the timing is off on both logistics and legislation surrounding this, that is what makes the event a lot more dangerous than parliament bargained for, which is at the heart of my issue here. Some will see “the Royal Mail Group has proposed a fortress-like scheme of 700 flats, only 12% of which will be affordable” as an issue. I think that the quote “The mayoral planning process is based entirely on achieving the maximum number of housing units on any given site, aimed at selling to an international market. The London-wide target of building 42,000 new units per year is predicated on a lot of very high density developments that don’t even comply with the mayor’s own policies on density” shows that the entire issue is greed driven and is not likely to yield anything affordable, which the 5 year tenancy that is likely to change even further. It is very possible that these moves allow the affordable housing to be placed on an income scale, which I would partially favour, but at present as the math does not take realistic economic values in mind, that scale will be based on 10 year old values, which means that the cost of living could be off by 35%, making food not the issue it already is. So in that view affordable housing is there for those who never need to eat, making the tenant deceased in more ways than one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Ashton Villa, Birmingham, Boris Johnson, BTL, Buy to let, Cannes, Conservatives, David Cameron, Financial Times, John Healey, labour party, Mipim international real estate fair, Oliver Wainwright, Royal Mail Group, shadow housing minister, shadow housing minister John Healey, Sir Amyas Morse, the Guardian, The Independent, The National Audit Office auditor general

December 5, 2015 · 22:30

A citizen of the stars

There is a game in development, the title is ‘Star Citizen‘, I am unlikely to play it at present as I am a console player and I do not have the PC needed for decent gaming. Yet, I have always had a good view on games and gaming. As the news on this game is getting hyped in a weird way, it is time for me to step in and let me give you, the people (the readers) a view that matters.

First of all, my initial exposure to the game Star Citizen was about 4-5 months ago. The game seemed decent in a graphical way. It showed to be buggy as hell (read glitched), but in itself that is not a fair assessment. You see, the game was still in development, it was not even an Alpha version. I kept that in mind as I was looking at what I call to be, a product that is not in a reviewable position. The first view you must take comes from Bluedrake42 (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0pqkf8WXPE).

You need to see this to the end, because there are a few views that matter. Like him I understand game development. He goes on about Cry engine versus Unreal engine. I stand in the middle, yet his view ‘they made massive progress‘ and ‘they are close to making a decent finished product‘. This is a view from October 4^th 2015 (yes, World Animal Day). He then compares towards Elite Dangerous and No Mans Sky. His view: ‘it will be good in its own right‘, which is a fair assessment. He moves towards the issue of the expectations of the people. I personally think that he is trying to address the hyped expectations of an emotionally pushed audience, which is not the same. That is the part we cannot win, because it is an illusionary view that is not in league to the things that matter here.

So what to think of the views, the scandals and the illusion of the funded crowds.

For that we need to take a view on Forbes (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/10/04/star-citizen-developer-threatens-lawsuit-against-the-escapist-demands-apology-and-retraction/). It refers to the escapists issues that seems to be an issue on several levels. When we step back, there is an issue on communication and project management. When we take a step back we can see that there is an issue. The question becomes, do we keep on building or do we finish a part and then move on? David Braben opted for solution 2 with Elite Dangerous, which does not invalidate option one. I am not having a go at Chris Roberts or at Cloud Imperium Games. Why should I? I play on consoles and I am happy that universe based games are growing. You see, with Star Citizen around, both No Mans Sky and Elite Dangerous will up their game to make that game an even better game and I the gamer will win, you the gamer will win too.

So what is this about the escapist?

The following quote matters: “Star Citizen is an ambitious space simulation title from industry veteran Chris Roberts. The game began as a passion project, drawing inspiration from Wing Commander and Freelancer. Star Citizen promised a triumphant return to the space-sim genre by combining a huge universe with multiple gameplay options, a massive variety of ships, and no subscription fees“, this sounds interesting and it seems a little like Elite Dangerous. That part matters when we consider the next two quotes on the article “It’s never been done because it can’t be done. – Several sources” and “The popular consensus among most of the people who reached out is that Chris Roberts is not intentionally a con man; “He doesn’t set out in the morning to screw anybody over. He’s just incredibly arrogant,” CS2 stated“.

Now to take a look at the previous two quotes. You see ‘it cannot be done‘ is the first part we can burn down. Not only is Elite dangerous doing what Star Citizen is achieving (when you include Elite Dangerous Horizons), the parts that were promised can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccKp1n13jQ. Which shows things that Elite Dangerous cannot deliver at present. In addition, what the movie shows is pretty amazing. Star Citizen shows an overwhelming approach Elite could not do when it was initially made (48Kb is not enough resources). Elite Dangerous is trying to get close what the current video is delivering. I will not step away from Elite Dangerous, but what the movies show makes me want to have a decent gaming PC.

It is the second part that is now an immediate concern, which is “consensus among most of the people who reached out is that Chris Roberts is not intentionally a con man“, so is this about defamation? ‘Most of the people who reached out‘ is an issue now. You see, the game has been in development for 3 years. This is no longer a mere simple space game. The FPS part of the game is like an upgraded version of Mass Effect in first person view. Better stated it is a very much upgraded version of Half-Life in space. So yes the game is still in development, it is in an Alpha version and it shows elements of Elite Dangerous, elements of Half-Life and elements of Mass Effect.

Have things been overpromised? It is hard to tell; when I consider the progress that I have seen over 4 months, that part is massive. An open sandbox of the universe which could be seen as a true open space MMO is pretty amazing. In opposition the allegations against the team and more important Chris Roberts is pretty far out there. Especially when we consider the growth, the evolution and what seems to be working at this very moment is just too overwhelming. So why is there a growing anti-Star citizen here?

It is a crowd funded game. The fact it drew in well over 80 million is a little big, but the game is growing towards the levels we are not used to see. At this point, the alpha looked better and more stable than Assassins Creed Unity did after it was released. So why the anti-CIG mode? There are all kinds of allegations out there, yet actual evidence is still to be shown. CIG has been very communicative (as far as the pages show me) and in addition, Sandi Gardiner and Chris Roberts have been on a mission to create something unique and so far the intense growth makes me wonder where the anti-movement is from. The fact that this independent product is coming from crowdfunding, whilst several triple A developers have not been that successful either, apart from the usual examples I have used makes it all more questionable. In this case I would like to mention Drive Club, a Sony game that was supposed to blow us away in 2014, which is likely to end up becoming the free PlayStation Plus game no one wants to download.

In my view, No Mans Sky will be the amazing product we hope it is and the designers will unveil it when they are ready and this is stated to be in June 2016. I will await that moment. Star Citizen is the game that will be released at some point and is already showing to be an amazing experience. Elite Dangerous remains my choice and it delivered the upgraded game on a massive scale that the CBM-64 version could never deliver and in all that the game experience transferred in an amazing way. The movies show Star Citizen to be on par with other space game Sims and I feel that it is decently certain that whomever crowdfunded this will end up with a copy of the game that they will love (from the game-play movies I saw), which makes it a game that might become a legend in its own right.

In all this, where does the escapist magazine remain? Well, there remains the view that the article shows (if no proper evidence is shown) that they could be in a defamation mess. In this, additionally I must state that there is enough evidence out there that that the game will become a reality, which does not mean that serious questions should not be asked. Yet, is that bad?

You see, through crowdfunding they needed 2 million and it seems that they ended up with ninety million, so the scope of the game has grown almost exponentially, this is not a bad thing. It does however come with a new dimension in problems. You see a 90 million game would be massively different in scope than a 2 million game. This implies that you the reader should keep a massive amount of skepticism in view of the allegations, especially when no one is willing to put a name with those claims.

As a game reporter, I have issues. I am not a fan of crowd funding, yet Elite Dangerous was done through that and is the success the players are loving. There are a few other successes, but for the most it is not a stable choice to make. Now Star Citizen is likely to be next success. With that we get another game where we get to become gamers who become citizens of a star system far far away, something many of the big developers were never able to do.

So I am ending with one more side, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gawRjeZisYY shows a pre Beta game with responses from gamers. A 1^st person part that is amazing (remember: pre Beta). Just one ship, flying around, walking around, which indicates that, even though delayed, the people who are on the Star Citizen train are about to get an experience that gaming has never delivered before, is that not what gaming is about? I will remain an Elite Dangerous fan, yet I can clearly see that this game will end up with a fan base that is massive, I have no doubt about that. Consider all the titles I mentioned in this article, how many of them allow to EVA to a derelict spaceship? None of them!

Realise that and consider where any of the valid anti-Star Citizen arguments remain.

Consider the elements:

A crowd funder has no rights to decide the company’s course.
A crowd funder is entitled to a finished product.
Crowd funders are entitled to updated communications from the makers.

And if there is one valid part of opposition in all this, than it is the part on management. Yes, as far as I can see, errors were indeed made, errors in the scope that are made all over the world on a daily basis. When you suddenly learn that you got an additional 88 million to grow your game, you will make a few more errors. Yet these people are not that ‘vocal’ when it is not ‘See Eye Gee’ that is making the errors, but another three lettered company that has had its share of bungles and screw ups all over its corporation (costing millions in the process), It is called ‘Eye Bee Emm’.

Cloud Imperium Games has done element three, it is working on element two and so far we see can see element one is not in play. So please do not give in to hypes (positive or negative) and consider the sources of any scandals implied and keep whatever thoughts you have and await the playable demo that is either Beta or a final version. I can only wish Cloud Imperium Games the best of luck and I look forward to take a real testing look at the finished product.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Law, Media

Tagged as Bluedrake42, Chris Roberts, Cloud Imperium Games, Drive Club, Elite Dangerous Horizons, Elite: Dangerous, Forbes, Freelancer, Half-Life, Mass Effect, No man's sky, Sandi Gardiner, Star Citizen, Wing Commander

December 5, 2015 · 11:13

Perception

Perception is an essential need for all of us. Yes, it is used in videogames where the power of perception allows us to see our foes approach earlier (Fallout series), or it allows the game to play with our minds as floors become ceilings and where statues follow your every move (Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem). Just two of many options, but this is not about gaming or about a videogame. You see perception allows us to perceive the events as they take place. From my perception it is clear that the events in Martin Place were never terrorism, it was merely a case of a mental health crises with a hostage situation and that person happened to be a Muslim.

The events in France were clearly terrorism, it is that clear view that we could all watch that diminished whatever terrorism claim existed over Sydney, and perception does that.

But what about San Bernardino?

You see, that is not a question, it is not THE question, but it is an essential question. The guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/san-bernardino-shooting-tashfeen-malik-isis-connection). Here we see that the FBI is investigating this shooting as an act of terrorism.

To their support we should consider

Suspects attempted to destroy ‘digital fingerprints’
Tashfeen Malik allegedly made pledge of allegiance to Isis in a Facebook post on day of the attack
FBI director James Comey said that there was “no indication that the killers are part of an organised larger group or form part of a cell. There is no indication that they are part of a network.”

In the first three elements, it is important to realise that the first one gives view to premeditation.

These three need to be kept in mind, yet the main issue is not just those three, now I need to push a few quotes together, so you see the view that I also perceive to be.

“Tashfeen Malik, 27, swore fealty to the terror group in a Facebook post on Wednesday, the same day she and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, committed the rampage” is part one, which we now connect to “David Chelsey, a lawyer for Farook and Malik’s family, said many details “do not add up”. “There are a lot of disconnects and there are a lot of unknowns and there are a lot of things that quite frankly don’t add up, or seem implausible,” he told CNN. “It doesn’t make sense. No one has ever seen Syed with any of the things – with some of the things found on the scene, they’ve never seen them with him. The pipe bombs, for example. No one had ever seen him use or have anything like that,” he said“.

Now we get the issue at hand. If we accept David Chelsey’s words as absolute truth, we are faced with at least two scenarios that are a lot harsher than you might consider at present.

In the first, is David Chelsey in absolute lawyer mode? So to say, if the families Farook and Malik require isolation from the events, this is the play to make, which means that his clients might not have told him the truth. They might not have been lying, but that is not the same. Yes, it is possible that they never saw a pipe bomb, but that does not mean that they have not been privy to eccentricities like buying goods in the middle of nowhere when you can buy the same items 15 minutes away from their home. The lawyer might just be doing his job, but in equal measure he is aiding in changing a view from realistic to an intentional attempt to misinform the federal authorities, or more precise his clients are. It is an additional view towards premeditation in the worst case, and an intentional act to colour the glasses of those trying to sway the public.

Why am I stating this?

Consider you are a parent and your child picks up a gun and kills fellow schoolies and teachers, how would you react? When we have a mental health case like Sydney that view is one we can all understand, but what if your child shouts allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, now it becomes a different game, now the parent does whatever he/she does not to lose their own sanity. Can you blame them?

So is the FBI confronted with a case where the family was unaware, in denial or hiding their involvement/ we can state that the lawyer is not helping any of it, but that is not his fault, the FBI’s job does not get to be any easier!

In the second, when we consider the acts from Malik, who was born in Pakistan and travelled on a Pakistani passport, and recently lived in Saudi Arabia. She apparently met Farook online. In addition, the participation of Syed Rizwan Farook now ups the ante in all this. In addition we read “Christian Nwadike, who worked with Farook for five years, told CBS that his co-worker had been different since he returned from Saudi Arabia. “I think he married a terrorist,” Nwadike said“, so here is the issue, how did Christian Nwadike know? I am not stating he is right or wrong, I am asking, what signs were there? You see, I am going somewhere with this. Was Syed Rizwan Farook groomed for terrorism during his engagement period? It seems he lived an isolated life, which goes a long way towards making him an easier mark, yet in that, from the little I know of Muslims, one woman alone could not have done this, which implies that he’s had additional conversations with a Muslim Cleric, one he met whilst in Saudi Arabia, possibly with contacts before and after he came back, which would have gone a long way towards move for extremism, which makes destroying the digital fingerprint essential and possibly that part, if successful is part of the problem because that method can be employed again and not just in the US.

So is that all?

You see, this opens the door to the issue the FBI has been puzzling over for the better part of a decade. Home grown terrorism was always a worry, but the extent shown in San Bernardino gives view that part of all this remained under the radar of the FBI, which is the perception issue they have. They knew they had it, as they were trying to find options on how to deal with this, but in all this the reality is that perception is the only initial weapon a person have to counter the imagination of an extreme fanatic, yet is that enough and what else could there be?

It is not something that is easily answered. You see as FBI director Comey said, there are elements of evidence that will not make sense, but is that because the picture is distorted or is that because elements are missing. That is part of the puzzle that both the FBI and Homeland security are facing at present. This now gets us to the next perception, is this in part Lone wolf terrorism? The act here might not be, but the ‘support’ system behind this, is that part lone wolf terrorism? You see, part of these answers are not here yet and perhaps it will take a while for this to surface, but when we consider the pipe bombs we are also left with other questions. If this was a one way trip, why did the police find the dozen pipe bombs? KSNV, News3LV reports (at http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/story/12-pipe-bombs-thousands-of-ammo-found/sf3rLM0bzEWOxM3pBXLpZA.cspx), “Authorities have revealed 12 pipe bombs and more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition were found inside the San Bernardino suspect’s believed residence“, did they expect to start shooting, get away, go home and load up for the next round? You see, in all this perception is key. Now consider the elements that are required to buy and make these pipe bombs. Are you telling me that this does not get noticed? Well, apparently not. I can go to www.bulkammo.com and get myself 500 Rounds of 7.62x54r for the FN FAL for a mere $241, or $240 for 1000 rounds of 9 mm, which means that they had left for well over $750 in ammo at home. In addition, if they kept a certain lifestyle (spending), were no flags raised by the shifting of purchased goods? If we consider the other elements in play, where did the money come from? Perhaps his job allowed him to prepare to this extent, yet in all this questions come to the surface, a rational mind would expect that this was decently certain to be a one way trip, so why leave bombs and ammo at home? The part made no sense, unless they were not alone, perhaps another party was going to be in attendance but they bailed out at the last moment and as such this act was more hastily executed. It is mere speculation on my side, but that speculation comes from my own perception of the events seen. They could be very wrong!

You see that view is in opposition from the very last quote in the News3LV report “They were equipped and could have committed another shooting but we intercepted that“, did you really? Consider that the San Bernardino Police Department is a mere 3.5 miles away, at normal speed that is 10 minutes, at full speed and sirens no more than 3.5 minutes. That is all the time they would have had because there is an option that patrols are on scene, so getting back home was never truly realistic, so why leave it all there?

Were they head cases to begin with or is the FBI missing a few clues? Clues that David Chelsey is helping to muddy. Not by his choice, because he is representing his clients the best way he can, so I am not having a go at him in any way, shape or form. In addition, the weird act of their landlord to give the press access to their home is actually giving us additional questions. The house in the way it looked, was that how they lived? Did they never have guests and as such was the wife intentionally isolating her groomed co-shooter from the very beginning.

If that is the case, than how does the response from the family as voiced by David Chelsey make sense?

You see perception is an essential element, what we perceive, what others should have perceived and what the authorities perceive from all the data that they are receiving this very moment. How does it all fit?

At present it does not seem to fit at all, apart from the timetable and the fact that they either took no time at all for the ‘first’ shooting being able to get past South Waterman Avenue which then lead to the 4 hour manhunt. Again, this is not to place blame (in this case on the San Bernardino Police Department), but to get us to the question, that as the shooting had passed, how did the couple expect to get back home to pick up more bombs and ammunition? I asked it before and with the added information you too should consider the thought on how they could have gotten back to their homes to load up for more? It merely gives us the question mark and the idea that this was likely never meant to be a party of two. If we accept that speculation we will get to the final question, who else was involved (were more people involved) and what comes next?

What is your perception on this case?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as bulkammo.com, Christian Nwadike, David Chelsey, FBI director James Comey, FN FAL, France, ISIS, James Comey, KSNV, Martin Place, Muslim Cleric, News3LV, Pakistan, San Bernardino, San Bernardino Police Department, Saudi Arabia, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik

November 28, 2015 · 20:58

Fuelling a Fire that fools no one

Today we watch again how escalations in the political field are moving in separate directions. It is SBS (at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/11/28/turkeys-erdogan-warns-russia-not-play-fire), that gives us a few items for concern.

At 1:32 we hear that cooperation between Russian and Turkish forces have been suspended. In light that a Russian plane was downed, I kind of think that cooperation was never a big thing here in the first place.
At 1:42 we hear (what I regard to be an outspoken lie) that if the Turkey had known it was a Russian plane, it would have warned it differently.

The title ‘Turkey’s Erdogan warns Russia not to ‘play with fire’’ adds to the entire article. the added quote “Moscow said it would suspend visa-free travel with Turkey” should read like sunshine in Greece, because with all the hardship, whomever from Russia can afford a vacation would usually desire the Mediterranean, which now means that they could end up visiting Greece by the boatload, which would be OK with the Economically stricken Greek population.

All this because some power players did not think things through. Turkey wanted to play games and now they are realising that they woke up an angry bear, all whilst the protection Turkey expects from USA might not come. No one wants to come to the aid of a partner as stupid as Turkey.

No one denies that the Russian flight might have taken it over Turkish soil, yet the response of a transgression of 17 seconds is beyond ridiculous, especially in light of the fact that Turkey or its citizens were not under attack. I will be the first to give way to downing any actual opponent, yet in all this, Turkey was never an objective or target. In all this, the lie (as I see it) shown on French TV gives us another side. As stated in my earlier blog (‘The additional price of War‘, November 25^th at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/11/25/the-additional-price-of-war/), where we got the data from the Guardian that the Russian plane had transgressed over Turkish space for 17 seconds. Now understand that it should take a plane in the vicinity 5 seconds to get into position and fire the kill shot, with an additional 2-3 seconds for the missile to hit the plane. This gives the minimum required time of almost 8 seconds. Which means that in 9 seconds, the planes had to be there, information through the chain of command had to be given for the Russian plane to be shot down, which give us only one option, the planes were send out with a definite kill order from the start. This invalidates what I consider to be a massive public lie by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in addition, it also disposes the ‘thread’ that there was any communication between Turkey and Russia, so that red phone was massively useless. Turkey has been a joke for the longest time. They showed that when they expected a 30 billion pay off in 2003, now we see that the times Turkey became active, we can doubt whether this was against Syria or against Kurdistan. Which now take us to the introduction of the debate on the demons of idiocy that we seem to find behind some of the European charters. The first one was shown a year ago when Greece did not keep any of its promises and weaselled itself away from any agreement. It was only months later, after papers of innuendo and false rattling. I dealt with that part on July 6^th 2015 in ‘The mere legality’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/07/06/the-mere-legality/), basically the lawmakers as stupid as they were seem to forget the cancellation clause, no matter how bad Greece behaved, Danuta Hübner, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, with the added paper by Phoebus Athanassiou ‘Withdrawal and expulsion from the EU and EMU‘ gave clear view that a nation cannot get expulsed from the EEC, no matter how bad they behave. Now we see with Turkey in regards to this overreaction that expelling them from NATO seems to be equally impossible. Which makes me question the stupidity of any politician who was connected to the request. How stupid will people get?

You and I cannot answer that question, we can only watch the fallout and see what happens next.

Yet, this is only the beginning. The NY Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/world/europe/russia-turkey-tensions.html), gives us ““I would like to meet Putin face to face in Paris,” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a speech on Friday, referring to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. “I would like to bring the issue to a reasonable point. We are disturbed that the issue has been escalated”“, I am not that surprised, you see, the total lunacy of shooting down a Russian plane whilst Turkey was not under attack, or even under any form of threat made the downing of the Jet an act of utter stupidity. It is not unlikely that President Obama told him that he would be on his own against Russia, so Turkey gets the play the submissive joke it should have been regarded as from day one. It is the final ‘statement’ that makes it all hilarious. He stated: “He warned Russia “not to play with fire” in reacting to the downing of the plane, adding, “We really attach a lot of importance to our relations with Russia, and we don’t want our relations to suffer in any way”“. First of all it was Turkey playing with fire, this close before Thanksgiving, now we see the added part “Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said that Ankara would “work with Russia and our allies to calm tensions”“, so what tensions are they Mr Davutoglu? Apart from Turkey, NATO members are not in any dangers, as you started hostilities NATO has no need and no interest in getting involved. In the worst case scenario, Turkey will get a different flag, they will just replace the crescent moon and replace it with a hammer and sickle. The one bright spot could be that Constantinople will get its original name again and it will have its original Cathedral once more (a Coptic version I reckon). None of that should read as disastrously bad news.

Will this become the new flag of Turkey in 2016? That is the question, because no matter how we seem to stand on ego, you don’t just shoot down any plane like that, not in the frame of 17 seconds, not when there is no threat of any kind against that sovereign nation. In addition, there would not be enough time to warn the plane against transgressing on Turkish airspace and then fire on the plane. 17 seconds is not enough time and warning a plane whilst still over Syrian air seems pointless. Yet, like Greece, Turkey might bank on the fact that he can’t get thrown out of NATO, just like Greece could not get thrown out of the EEC. This makes for a much larger issue, because if the smaller players are suddenly resorting to ego based activities whilst they indiscriminately continue to target their own political ‘opponents’ we have to start asking the serious questions no one tends to ask at present.

How could this have been allowed in the first place?

That answer is a little too complex to answer, yet I feel certain that part of this is linked to the fact that not governments but large corporations are in growing command of the nations involved does have something to do with this. The entire financial debacle is at the centre of this, as Turkey would never have don that if the US would have been in a much stronger economic position, but it is not and as I see it, which is part of the problem.

In addition there is an article from April 2015 which was in the Business insider. The title ‘Turkey is ‘making NATO very uncomfortable’’ (at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/turkey-is-making-nato-very-uncomfortable-2015-4). the issue here is “Turkey’s push to carve out an independent foreign policy and purchase arms from countries outside of NATO is raising concerns among members of the defensive military alliance, Emre Peker reports for the Wall Street Journal“, so even as there are certain rules to this game, turkey has been ignoring them for well over 7 months, so why should Turkey be regarded as a NATO nation? It’s not like they are connected to the Atlantic Ocean is it? The additional “a military deal with a Chinese company could open NATO’s door to espionage, especially given that the company is on the US proliferation list“, which might not account for much, but China has been regarded as a ready wielder of industrial espionage on many levels and not just by the US, so we have more than one issue with Turkey and as such, the question becomes why allow Turkey in NATO? I wonder if NATO might be better off with Russia and not Turkey in NATO (yes, just allow for the idea for a second, the hidden gem might just pop up). It is not even the worst of the transgressions according more sources than just the Business Insider. There is the sponsoring of Hamas, the support to hunt down Kurds and ignore ISIS altogether. All of these facts bring into question the reasoning of keeping Turkey as a NATO ally. As far as I can tell, should this come to blows, once Turkey loses its EEC and NATO privileges, once it realises that ISIS oil is not reliable and as it realises that other funds mainly came from Moscow, whatever is left will not sustain the Turkish Nation, that part might become food for thought soon enough, even as winter is coming, next summer will show the consequence on irrationally and irresponsibly downing the Russian jet. Consider that the Turkish Deficit is partially contained by tourism, with the 25% of its tourism in danger (Russian tourists) how will Turkey get by in 2016, because that deficit would grow beyond expected percentages. The Russians have always been very nationalistic, which would drive them towards Greek shores with the greatest of ease. So a loss of 3.3 billion is only the beginning. If Russia employs a Turkish border ban and those trucks end up having to go via Iran or Armenia/Azerbaijan, the profit margins will evaporate giving additional blows to the Turkish economy (source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-26/turkey-without-russian-tourists-strikes-economy-where-it-s-weak). In addition we see the speculation that Russian suitcase trade (tourism purchases) exceeds 6 billion, which is 0.8% of their current GDP, which will push debts even further. So as we get to 2017, the Turkish economy might not be close to breaking even. All this for mere ego? That remains the question because there was no tactical reason to down the Russian plane, there was no defence reason for downing the plane, in that light only ego seems to remain. In final addition to this, it is of course only the beginning. As Germany and the US removed their patriot systems from the Turkish borders, those Chinese defence systems will become very essential to the defence of Turkey and they are not that cheap. The Chinese HQ-9 (if that is the one they ordered) has a price tag that is around 3.4 billion for Turkey, which is according to the latest gossip 3 billion for the missiles and hardware and roughly 370 million for an English/Turkish translation of the operating manuals. So even in the world of weapons, knowing additional languages pays off nicely.

So how are we fuelling events? That question becomes a lot more pressing when we consider the original ‘The North Atlantic Treaty (1949)‘. Here we see in article 4 “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened” and article 5 “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area” (at http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf). Now consider article 5, no armed attack occurred, at no point was Turkey even under attack or under the impression of attack, a 17 second border transgression is not an attack. That remains in the core of this. This means that if Russia retaliates now, Turkey might stand alone, which is not what they hoped for and gives rise to the question “How could Turkey have been this stupid?”

That is for you the reader to ponder on, so enjoy your thanksgiving as the Russian are. They are apparently having Turkey, both deep fried and roasted!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Ahmet Davutoglu, Business Insider, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, China, Chinese missile, Danuta Hübner, EEC, European Parliament, HQ-9, Industrial Espionage, Kurdistan, NATO, NY Times, Phoebus Athanassiou, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia, SBS, Syria, The additional price of War, The mere legality, The North Atlantic Treaty (1949), Turkish prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin, Wall Street Journal, Withdrawal and expulsion from the EU and EMU

November 15, 2015 · 03:28

With a little bit of Ruffalo

Paris is in turmoil, before we go out in rage and aggression, we need to realise that sometimes a spark comes from another direction, in this article realise the following from the beginning to the end of it. Mark Ruffalo who is regarded as a great actor and a nice guy should today be remembered as a great humanitarian and an excellent actor. 9 hours ago he stated on Twitter (@MarkRuffalo) “Don’t allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks“, which is very much to the point. Whether the word ‘intended’ or ‘expected’ or ‘feared’ should be used here is beside the point. It is not mere semantics and Mark hit the nail on the head.

Yet, what was this foolish act, to go after the one nation where liberalism is at the centre of life, ah, that might have been the reason all along, I am merely speculating!

I have never been about ‘mere speculating’ so let’s take a look at what we have (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates).

These were the attacks:

The Bataclan, which is a theatre located at 50 boulevard Voltaire in the 11th arrondissement of Paris.
Stade de France, the national stadium of France, situated just north of Paris in the commune of Saint-Denis.
La Belle Equipe, a cafe on Rue de Charonne.
Le Carillon, a bar-cafe at the junction of Rue Bichat and Rue Alibert.
Le Petit Cambodge, a restaurant at the junction of Rue Bichat and Rue Alibert.
Rue Fontaine au Roi

The other side of this coin (which is linked to all this) is that we see how certain Humanitarian groups are reduced to the jokes they should be. This shows exactly how Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was correct. The flotilla’s are stopped to slow down the massive intake of explosives and weapons into Gaza. The 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla attack was nothing more than some marketing ploy (as I see it). You see the direct reality is that goods are not stopped by Israel, goods are inspected by Israel before they go into Gaza. What makes this all such a bad joke is because:

The blockade of the Gaza Strip imposed by Israel and Egypt

So BOTH Egypt and Israel are enforcing the blockade!

As per May 2010, the list of imported items included 2 million litres of diesel fuel and gasoline, fruits, vegetables, wheat, sugar, meat, chicken and fish products, dairy products, animal feed, hygiene products, fabrics, clothing and shoes. You see, if that flotilla had nothing to hide, and if there were non-weaponisable articles in there they would have been inspected and the materials would have been delivered. This is what made the Humanitarian joke to say the least. They wanted to play a pissing game with a nation that had been under terrorist attack for decades. Now relate all that to what we saw that happened this weekend!

These seven attacks if we include Charlie Hedbo shows the issue, it shows terrorism. This is what Israel faced and those well intentional kids with their propaganda minds are now pushed onto a page of reality. Now they are all in disbelief, it is all about non-comprehension and blaming outside sources. Blaming it on a ‘few’ desperate minds.

Reality gives us a very different picture. It shows that many of you are not ready to face. It is a similar reason why I personally at time regard some members of the court to be ideological cowards (if it pleases the court). Yet, time is on my side, what people pushed for when they considered me to be overinflating the ‘risk’. Now we see the articles with issues I elaborated on for over 2 years. Now we see the Guardian with ‘Can international law meet the challenges of today’s lawless conflicts?’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/nov/14/international-law-yemen-syria-isis-conflict). I will elaborate my view of the courts later, but for now it is time to make one more step before we get back to Paris.

So, let’s get back to the political puppets, because they have a role to play in all of this. Perhaps you would like to remember March 9^th 2015, where Greece’s defence minister Panos Kammenos threatened to ‘flood Europe with migrants, including Syrian jihadists’. So if any of the 8 cadavers are Syrian, will we see a request for the head of Panos Kammenos on a brass platter (the man is not worthy of silver)? Will we suddenly see more ‘apologies’ regarding poorly chosen words? As per 5 minutes ago, Sky News reported via Twitter that one of the bombers had a Syrian passport.

All these issues matter and they are all connected. We will see so many responses flooded on emotions and not enough on the cold light that logic brings. Logic must be ground to all this, no matter what kind of logic, but the unconditional need to eradicate all ISIS life. In this I do not oppose Mark Ruffalo and his need for humanity (as well as the need to instil it). I do not oppose or attack his values. He is a man of peace, or a man from peaceful times. There is nothing negative about it, I come from times of chaos and strife. I know what needs to be done. I might not be in any decent shape, but I was a crack shot, which means that up to 800 meters I can, I would and I am willing to cull the ISIS population as per immediate. In that I reckon the French must now realise that their brethren in Légion Etrangère, can and should now do what needs to be done, take the war to ISIS, wherever they are. This is what needs to be done and politicians on a global scale need to wake up and need to wake up fast.

If you doubt these words, then consider the following facts: 6 attacks required some planning, acquisition of goods (explosives, weapons and ammunition), they required transport and these elements needed to time the events, which implies support, funding and training. This is not some lone wolf club, this is clear evidence of orchestration and a larger support network that is now proven to be in France and possibly in additional EEC nations.

In this I will not oppose the call by Mark Ruffalo, but I will oppose the call by British broadcaster Rufus Hound who responded with a call for a peaceful response, You see, the theory of peaceful negotiations is partially valid when you deal with any established party that adheres to certain values (like not bombing civilians), in the case of a barbarian collective (people abstaining from evolution) the clear path is eradication. You might shy from this word, but the definite reality is that this world no longer has any place for certain extremism. The disavowed of any extremism is almost essential (yes, ironically that includes my view, which is currently based on realism).

Here we see the irony where realism is based on values we can no longer support, which is partially why Humanitarian values more and more stop being part of the reality of life. Greed got us part of the way and the rest was created through the intolerance of the enactors. So basically they heralded their own extreme eradication.

Is my view to extreme?

You might think that, but consider the costs of these events, not what is lost, but the funds these people needed to get the weapons and explosives. Getting into France, all those took time and money, places to store and places to collect all of this. Cars to move what is needed and to leave a false trail. All that supports the evidence of orchestration and intent. Even with the decent paying job I have, it would take 2-3 years to get all the funds required, so someone funded this. Which takes me back to the words of Panos Kammenos, given in utter stupidity so that he got some limelight, this is part of the realisation that there is more support and more funds. This needs to be halted, we must hunt and eradicate ISIS and their support engine. In my mind ANY bank executive who made short cuts to make their bonus, if they are found to be in support, strip their rights after which they get a fatal accident. I feel 99% certain that after the third ‘accident’, these greed driven idiots will suddenly grow morality (a fear of mortality does tend to do that).

How does all this get us back to Paris?

In part it is the European consequence to these attacks. Any refugee trail is likely to be halted completed. They were halted in British to some extent, but now we will see a massive change in movement and in addition we will see a massive rise in intolerance, which is to be expected but should not be allowed for. We will now face the humanitarian dangers America faced from 1941 onwards with their Japanese and Japanese-American heritage. The camps are a black blight on American society and even though it partially was able to get past that, Europe could face a similar stigma and Paris will be at the centre of all this. Two days ago, we saw the news stating ‘French political elites panic as Marine Le Pen Gains Ground‘, well if they were afraid 2 days ago, how will they react coming Monday morning? The most powerful quote in that article was “Ms. Le Pen can sense the feeling of distress across the nation as voters feel they have been abandoned to their fate by legacy parties allowing that influx – without consultation. They feel no affinity for the ‘multi-cultural’ France they believe is being foisted on them“, that feeling will escalate next week as the blame game starts, some of it might go towards Panos Kammenos, which implies that Tsipras might request the resignation of his slightly too outspoken National Defence Minister, my reasoning here is that if any evidence is found that the Syrian bomber came from Greece, the gloves come off completely and Greece will face ridicule they have never faced before.

Yet, Paris is only the beginning, having a history for being the cultural centre of Europe also means that an efficient transport system has been the foundation of France for some time (ignoring train delays at present). €132 gets me to Amsterdam in 3 hours, €23 gets me to Orleans in an hour. So as people are currently looking at the emotion, the chaos and the damage, there is little evidence that only 8 people would have been part of all this, as these people started their event, the rest of those teams could have moved onto ‘new’ targets. It will be up to DGSE and DGSI, both relying on BRGE to get to the core of some of this. Once military elements get involved it will become another matter entirely, in all this my initial advice is to Panos Kammenos to shut up and do whatever the French require of you. Now there is no evidence that these people went via Greece, but the words of Panos Kammenos will hang heavy in the air after these events in Paris. More important, how will Hungary and others react now? This now all heads back to Paris.

A Europe that needs to alter their view and legalities regarding extremism, the law was nowhere near ready to deal with this. The new French bill (at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/projets/pl2110.asp), seems to have a few issues, as per (https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/09/france-counterterrorism-bill-threatens-rights).

The quote “Under article 1, the interior minister could bar people from leaving France if there are “serious reasons to believe” they are planning to go abroad with the aim of “participating in terrorist activities, war crimes or crimes against humanity” or if authorities suspect they are traveling to a place where terrorist groups operate and in conditions conducive to their posing a threat to public safety upon their return to France. Once a decision is made, the person’s passport would be withdrawn and the person would be prevented from leaving the country“, So as we see Human Rights are complaining more and more regarding the fact that ‘the Bill Would Breach Free Movement and Expression‘, gives us in this day the reason for not taking Human Rights too serious. Some Human Rights organisations only have themselves to blame. The issues on Israel are one of the lighter examples. The fact that Human rights go against this (one of many objections) whilst we see objections towards ‘participating in terrorist activities‘ and the consequential ‘restriction of movement‘, we cannot take certain elements serious. Of course I am in this case also guilty of trivialising parts as there are a few more serious matters that might lead to questions to reflect upon. What we all forget that it is up to France to decide what is best for France. That realisation is part of the issue, where we see that Strasbourg is also all about rapers getting a chance for a family life with the child begotten through rape (a way to get a British Passport), now we see (in exaggerated terms) that terrorists should not be hindered in movement. That part is at the heart of the matter where both England and France are close to reject this Human Rights Act and it will further fuel both Brexit and Frexit.

Part of this is seen (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/french-intelligence-under-scrutiny-paris-attacks) where we see that French intelligence is now under scrutiny. The intelligence network has no resources to deal with the amount of data required to even possibly find any clue that something could be amiss. In all this we see the first responses from France. The most visible is Marine Le Pen, who only 13 minutes ago stated “For the sixth time in 2015, Islamist terrorism has struck our country. France mourns her dead and I mourn with her. I pay tribute to the dedication of our armed forces. France must determine who its friends are and who its enemies are. France’s enemies are those who maintain links with Islamism. Once and for all, France must recapture control of its borders. Islamist fundamentalism must be destroyed, radical mosques must be closed and radical clerics must be expelled. French terrorists must be stripped of their citizenship and banned from this country“. The ‘PROJET DE LOI, renforçant les dispositions relatives à la lutte contre le terrorisme‘ is only a first step, the question becomes, how will the surrounding nations react? The UK might be an island, but that benefit does not befall Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium. Where will this go for them? And the real true refugees, what will become of them? Questions that have no easy answer, yet at present, none seem to have any clear answers, which should worry the residents and citizens of many nations, including those that are not part of the EEC.

In the end Mark Ruffalo is completely correct with his statement, which is not corrected for the one part we forget, which is that ISIS has pronounced war on France, so what will you do? Hope for some kind of empty peace, or will you accept that this is a war and it must be answered with the military force it deserves and the lack of rules and rights that this opponent is not worthy of. Time will tell what will be their next act, yet I have a clear idea of what their opponents will do. They will express condolences, they will meet, talk and I expect that they will lack in actions, in resolve and in clear operational steps, which makes for a worry, because the lack of operational actions is not something that ISIS has. I will let you consider the events that were and how it will affect the times that come and feel free not to ignore the words of Mark Ruffalo.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military

Tagged as Brexit, BRGE, DGSE, DGSI, EEC, Egypt, Frexit, Gaza Strip, Human Rights Act, Hungary, ISIS, Israel, Marine Le Pen, Mark Ruffalo, Orleans, Panos Kammenos, Paris, Stade de France, Syrian Terrorist, terrorists, The Bataclan, UK

November 3, 2015 · 23:51

Fail it until you nail it

Another day another moment I roll my eyes. You see the Guardian came with an interesting article, interesting and kind of useless (OK, useless is a bit of a stretch). Let’s explain that part. The title is interesting enough. When we see ‘World’s biggest tech companies get failing grade on data-privacy rights‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/03/data-protection-failure-google-facebook-ranking-digital-rights), many of us, me included get to be a little curious.

The first part is shown here: “Given a percentage grade on privacy, freedom of expression and their commitment to those value based on an exhaustive analysis of their user agreements, no single company scored an aggregate grade above 65%“, the quote by Rebecca MacKinnon might sound nice, but she should know better in more than one way.

In the first, some of these companies are so global that many rights tend to be an upper level aggregation of the nation with the least rights. If America wasn’t so Prudishly Hypocritical a lot less would be ‘censored’. In addition, a global internet sounds nice, but it is crossing borders with national legislation, the internet does not get to have rights above national legislation, even in nations that are as liberal as it gets, issues will rise and the largest tech companies are trying to surf those waves as Rebecca MacKinnon very well knows. I am even more worried when a company like Vodafone (aka Vodafail in Australia) scores better than Twitter.

As for the grades, the beginning of the methodology (at https://rankingdigitalrights.org/project-documents/2015-indicators/#TOTAL) rears its ugly head in an interesting way when we look at question C3.

Here we see:

C3. Internal implementation

Does the company have mechanisms in place to implement its commitment to freedom of expression and privacy?

Checklist elements (select all that apply):

The company provides employee training on freedom of expression and privacy issues.

The company maintains an employee whistle-blower program.

The items here are the fun part:

The company provides employee training on freedom of expression and privacy issues.

Let’s take a look at some of these ‘great’ techies. Orange, Vodafone and Axiata. All telecom companies. In order of mention: ???,92000,20000. So let’s say 125,000 staff members, so should employee training on freedom of expression be available to all? In Addition, Orange merged in several nations. These mergers include France Télécom and T-Mobile UK, whilst in addition Orange is being phased out by its parent company EE Ltd. (aka Everything Everywhere). And for the whistle-blower part. How often was this a ‘hidden’ option to commit gross and unacceptable industrial espionage? As a Journalist it might sound like a sexy article, but did she for one moment realise that tech corporations need to hold onto their IP on several levels? Her book might be regarded as ‘amazing’ (Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom), yet when I read: “Though the technology used for coordinating and organizing may be politically neutral, the context in which it is deployed is rarely so. Governments everywhere—whether they do business in the home government of companies or in the host government of markets—are demanding that Internet and telecommunications companies take sides, or at least stand back and avert their eyes while the government does what it needs to do, leaving the user or customer none the wiser.”, I worry!

Americans seldom comprehend that the right to be an utter idiot is not a god given right. In some places you get to be held accountable. I will go one step further, most of these self-proclaimed freedom fighters have excelled, through their train of thought, in protecting criminals and organised crime, which is some feather to put in your resume!

In addition, as people are crying for a free internet they also hold others accountable for their own stupidity.

Let’s show this with an example. If we change all global policies so that as per January 1st any hacked account who did not have a proper password will not be refunded, so the issue “Most banks will refund you your lost money after you sign some forms saying that you had nothing to do with the theft” will now include that not having proper quality passwords in place will be regarded as ‘assisted theft’. So you get no refund! I reckon it will take less than 1 day for the entire internet to go crazy regarding the injustice of that ruling. This is the issue, Rebecca MacKinnon doesn’t want a free internet; she wants an unaccountable internet. In her ‘netizenship’ she wants a free internet to hold governments to account, but in her virtual nation she has done nothing to hold those netizens accountable for Cyber bullying, harassment and assault on one’s devices. In that world there is no ‘Netfray’ (a made up crime definition), which might be freely seen as per adjusted version of the Crimes Act 1900 section 93C(2) “Netfray, a person who uses or threatens unlawful cyber violence towards another and whose conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable user skills present at the scene to fear for his or her personal data and internet safety is guilty of netfray and liable to imprisonment for 10 years“.

That part we will not see!

This is what makes that report an issue. Tech companies need to protect themselves non-stop. So, even as we agree that the cyber joke (aka Ashley Madison) is one side, the other side is Sony, which has a massively higher level of protection. In the latter case it is still speculations from many sides (including one from me), but a real timeline, and an account of events that could be decently precise was never revealed. Now I would expect that both sides of the fence prefers to keep it a secret, but in my view that hack was never clearly solved.

In that environment Rebecca MacKinnon wants an open internet, who is she kidding?

Back to that report, because the mentioned items are connected to what comes next!

F11. Identity policy (Internet companies)

Does the company require users to verify their identity with government-issued identification, or with other forms of identification connected to their offline identity?

More important, the part that follows: “This indicator is only applicable to Internet companies. We expect companies to disclose whether they might ask users to verify their identities using government-issued ID or other forms of identification that could be connected to their offline identity. Evaluation: This indicator has two possible answers. A company will receive full credit if its answer is “No,” and a company will receive no credit if its answer is “Yes.””

So as hackers use dummy accounts, trolls use fake id’s and Identity thieves use your id to have ‘fun’ and profit from what is not theirs, finding ways to stop them loses you a credit. There are places where a person’s ID is not the issue, but in this day and age those places are quickly diminishing. If you doubt this (always an option) then perhaps you remember Caroline Criado-Perez, who did something truly British by petitioning for Jane Austen to be face of the Bank of England £10 note.

By the way, the amount of death threats she got, how many of those people got arrested, how many of those got convicted? Yes, an open internet would stop all that! (That’s my sarcasm for voicing ‘no it will not’).

Another issue with her quotes is seen here: “Part of the problem is that this is a new world with the internet, and we are so dependent on these companies that we really need them to get it right. And they have a lot of work to do.”, so how about hammering on proper legislation and better issues on prosecuting some of those offenders? When the internet gets cleaned up, a lot more leeway could be given to something like the internet. In this a nice example is given by herself as she answered a question on movie piracy (September 2012), “the fact they are kids and they’re doing stuff and they don’t even realize it is illegal, or it is not that big deal“, it is only part of the answer, but she makes a decent case, yet the issue here is that it is a BIG deal, these ‘kids’ are causing harm to the rightful revenue of the maker of that movie, so you want an open internet, but the transgressions there are far too often trivialised and for the most they end up not getting prosecuted, you want accountability on one side, but not on your side, that is too uneven a scale and for the most many nations have not caught up with the quality IP laws they need to protect their innovators.

Now, it is not all bad, reading the linked ‘2015 Indicators’ of the Ranking Digital Rights is actually a lot more interesting than the article. A few of the questions were an amazing topic for discussion by themselves and the people behind them had done an interesting job, yet overall how can you compare Malayan company Axiata against Vodafone, or Orange for that matter? Axiata which was only recently rebranded (2009), whilst Vodafone has had a global one-sided (and to some extent one-sided failure) in the industry. A brand that has its fingers in the national pies of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Places where you either adhere to the law or you get shut down. So how can they receive a fair weighted grade? If not than the article and the exercise are almost moot. Almost because there is one part of the article I wholeheartedly agree with: “MacKinnon said remained optimistic the industry would improve its privacy efforts over time. “This is the test you take at the beginning of the class where everybody fails, and then you get to work, and then everybody’s going to improve,” she said”

It is not a mere ‘Amen to that’ ending, there are several serious issues that come to light, especially when you consider players like Apple and Microsoft. In case of Apple (with whom I still have some beef), is the fact that from 1995 onwards I have had a few of their devices, the Performa 630, the MacBook Pro and the G5, all between 2100 and 3000, all affordable and all on the ‘above average’ end of the range when they were released. The iPad 1 (I still have it) at a price that is still good, because that that same price you now get the latest version with 128GB; in an open non-accountable internet that is no longer an option, the billions poured into a design will find itself cheaply reengineered making new innovations no longer an option. Microsoft has a similar part, the Xbox One now at almost 50% of what the initial Xbox360 costs and close to equal in price with the very first Xbox. Even though this sounds good, these firms have had their shares of ‘errors’ to deal with, but overall those consumers (for the most) have never received a sour deal, this is only possible with quality protection in place, protection that MacKinnon is not considering to the extent she should, in her view of ‘netizens and the open internet’ she should get an equal fail grade, both sides need to work on whatever future comes our way, McKinnon know this too!

You do not get to graduate Harvard and run CNN in Beijing and Tokyo without a clear realisation that national borders are a lot more than a mere line on a map, which is what she almost implies, almost!

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Axiata, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Caroline Criado-Perez, CNN, Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom, Crimes Act 1900, EE, Everything Everywhere, France Télécom, Harvard, Indonesia, Jane Austen, Malaysia, Netfray, netizenship, Orange, Pakistan, rankingdigitalrights.org, Rebecca MacKinnon, Sri-Lanka, T-Mobile UK, the Guardian, Vodafone

October 17, 2015 · 22:36

Relying on the margins

This is an issue that has been on my mind for some time, you see, I am not the smallest person (not just in length). I never looked like I have been hungry for a decade. I try to eat healthy, I have my regular salads and I walk a lot. I walk every day on principle, to the extent that I never bothered with a car (apart from the parking fees all over the city). So, as I go into the city to buy clothes, I am always confronted that 2XL does not cut it. Now, this is all good and proper, so I am slightly larger than the norm. But is that the case? Several sources including The Medical Journal of Australia has stated that obesity in Australia is set at 67%. Third place after New Zealand set at 68.4% (a world’s first where Australians are delighted that Kiwis have beaten them at something) and The Americans at 74.1%. We are trailed by the Barmy Army (aka the Britons) by 63.8%.

So we can state that on one side we have an issue, on the other side, it would make perfect sense that the fashion industry would cater to a need. So, explain to me why those places calling themselves fashion stores would avoid anything beyond 2XL? In some cases I get the ‘excuse’ “Oh, we ran out of stock“, or: “Let me check in the back” (whilst we all know they knew they never had any). Some just state ‘2XL is the biggest we have’. The Levi’s store has one model in 3XL (actually, more like 2XL+), yet as I went through Pitt Street, Myers, David Jones, the QVB building and the World Square Shopping Centre. When looking for decent brand clothing, only Sportscraft and Rodd and Gunn were able to satisfy my need (3XL was in some cases the biggest they had). So, why would anyone in their right mind ignore a customer base of over 50%? (I am ignoring the 3-4 shops that specifically cater to larger sizes).

Can anyone explain it to me, because it makes no business sense at all! Ibisworld states that 122,266, comprise 12,785 clothing businesses. This is of course over Australia, not just Sydney. So how many are catering to the larger sized population? The question has international impact for two reasons. First there is the economic impact. When we see ‘Popular Fashion Retailer Files for Bankruptcy. We didn’t see this coming!‘ we have to ask how stupid the quoting party is. The company has around 9000 staff in 19 countries and is known for its hyper-sexual advertising, which is all fine (to some extent), yet when we look at http://store.americanapparel.net/ and we seek and realise that you will not find anything over 2xl (in some cases no larger than XL), than this implies that American Apparel, as well as the bulk of the fashion store is ‘intentionally’ barring 74% of its possible clientele. Why should such stupidity be ‘rewarded’ with a Chapter 11? It is not like the people in charge considered the first 10 chapters, did they?

This now relates back to an article in the Guardian titled ‘Model who criticised agency: I spoke out about body shape to protect girls‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/16/model-criticise-agency-spoke-out-body-shape-protect-girls), here we see the quote: “The model who used an open letter to criticise her former agency for allegedly sacking her because she was “too big” has said she spoke out so that youngsters were aware of the pressures in the industry to maintain unrealistic body shapes“, the subsequent quote “Caroline Nokes, who heads the all-party parliamentary group on body image, will lead the inquiry into whether the fashion industry is promoting unhealthy standards of beauty. It begins in November” is also cause for concern, but not for the reason you might think. I think that Caroline Nokes, Conservative for Romsey and Southampton North in Hampshire needs to take a seriously different look. You see, the ‘unhealthy standards of beauty‘ norm is a joke (in my humble opinion), what does it solve? By the time this all takes a gander towards anything serious we will be at least two administrations later. If there is truly a want and a need to make a change, than turn the transformation into a hammer people will not ignore.

Add to the restrictions of Bankruptcy, make the end date of an entry into the insolvency register 60 months, not 12. In addition, we add ‘unethical behaviour’ as a directive, so that debts caused through ‘unethical behaviour’ cannot be written off. Of course making a case for deciding to cater to 26% is unethical, which is a different issue and is still part of it all. Yet, consider that the need to cater changes, how can the fashion industry continue in its present firm when the catering part changes?

There is also an opposition from me towards this, you see, over-legislation is an equal evil. We believe in freedom of choice and as long as those persons accept the consequences and remain liable for the costs of what they did, they can do whatever they can. If someone wants to open a coffee shop just to cater to women, than they can. Oh no! They cannot, it is called discrimination. So how does this all fit? Well actually it does not! Shops can basically cater to the non-obese. They just ran out of stock, or they made ‘choices’ in their catalogue. Yet, in all this Caroline Nokes has a separate problem, until the view of what is ‘required’ utterly changes, she would end up talking up a storm to a collection of mugs without ears. Each holding a cup full of opinions and none replying to the actual situation. In all this a change is essential, but how to best go about it? As I see it, we can all have a business, we all make choices on what is the best course of business. Yet, when we go wrong, when our way was flawed, why should anyone else but us pay for our own mistake? Non-accountability has been at the axis of the law and legislation, especially corporate ones for too long. So we change that bit. If a business wants to exclude 74%, than that could be valid, it could be equally valid that some areas can never be supported, I understand that completely. Yet in all this, when we can state that it is more likely than not that a business could remain active if it had catered better to its possible customer base, than it should be regarded as an unethical business practice, as such the caterer should pay the price of unethicality. In all this a problem remains, how is catering to a specific group unethical?

If it is not, than can this person be labelled as unethical when the plan goes wrong? This remains an issue, as such there is little option for Caroline Nokes in this direction. In the end, segmentation is likely to safe businesses more often than not. So as such, what can we do to change this? There are as I stated two avenues. The first one is to stop enabling bad business sense. Of course you can engage in it, but if it falls on your face, the cost of that bad track will also fall in your lap and your lap only.

In the second (I still shiver for considering this) is to make a change to authorities like the financial services compensation scheme. That is a bit dodgier to address. As I see it, it is also not really a realistic path. In the end, is this just about me being unable to get a nice 3XL polo shirt?

The Guardian quote “Nokes said the industry is in a vicious circle, where agencies brought in young women to satisfy the designers, and designers made clothes “to fit the frame of a teenage boy” because those were the kinds of models that were available to them. “These are not clothes for women with busts and hips,” she added” only gets is a little bit into that direction, Another Guardian article, from August 27th (at http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/aug/27/where-are-all-the-plus-size-male-models), shows the addition we need. Now, we must agree that any business has rights to do as it pleases (as long as no laws are broken). So when we see “I asked three major agencies in the UK, all of whom have plus-size female models on their books, and they all said they have no plans to sign plus-size male models“. There does not seem to be any wrongdoing here. You see, they cater to the need of their clients, so the brands have no need for people in the plus-size range. Yet, should we not wonder why these brands are not catering to the missed population of over 300 million in the western world alone? Perhaps the better question becomes in this day and age of commerce, profit and revenue, why is nobody going there? (Apart from the 2-3 that are).

The additional quote “One of the biggest plus-size retailers in the UK, Bigdudeclothing.co.uk, started three years ago. It recently received funding from William Currie Group which invested in Asos and has seen 100% growth in each year it’s been in business. Its clothes go up to 10XL but it struggles to find models who best represent the brand“. So it seems that some are looking at the table that seems to be just set for them, completely with a 7 course meal. I stumbled upon a part that could grow their business even more. Yet is all this, is the truth truly exposed? You see, when we go to a store, we see that sizes M up to 2XL are all priced the same, yet should we not recognise that a ‘2XL’ requires 40% more material than a size ‘S’, should we not recognise that the costs would be a factor and prices and budgets are a factor. I am not certain that the argument is completely valid, but the facts are important here, as should the deeper search in this matter be.

So is Caroline Nokes correct that the inquiry on ‘the fashion industry is promoting unhealthy standards of beauty‘? I find for a partial no, because there is a factor that is actually worse and going for the least incriminating fact is just wrong! There might be a case that the industry is pushing for unhealthy work environment and unhealthy living requirements, which is another slice of cake altogether. Here we make the final step. I am referring to a 2010 paper called ‘Employment arrangements, work conditions and health inequalities‘ by Johannes Siegrist, Joan Benach, Abigail McKnight and Peter Goldblatt in collaboration with Carles Muntaner. (at https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/employment-and-work-task-group-report/employment-and-work-task-group-full-report.pdf), so what happened to that paper, more important, why is it not getting a lot more exposure? The quote “First, specific employment and working conditions are associated with elevated risks of reduced physical and mental health, elevated sickness absence and disability pension risk. These conditions are found in the English workforce. Importantly, these associations are not confined to traditional occupational hazards and related occupational diseases and injuries, but include increased health risks attributable to insecure employment and an adverse psychosocial work environment” (page 41), I say that modelling is gets to move high up that list here.

So we have a need that is partially addressed, we have a group that is under protected and over exploited, in addition we see an ego based business continuing in its track. There is no real injustice from a legal point of view, but there is a growing inequality. We can think whatever we want regarding Charli Howard, yet there is a line under all this that is ignored. We (me inclusive) seem to mix emotion and cold facts. Toby Wiseman, editor of Men’s Health magazine phrases it perhaps best: “When discussing anorexia in fashion, the health argument sensibly prevails; when obesity comes into play, emotive arguments tend to take over”, this is part of the problem Caroline Nokes faces. This is not about my need for a 3XL polo and a nice pair of pants, there is an ego driven society that is starting to be more and more disabling towards the market they are not interested in.

Again, is this about me and my 3XL shirt? Perhaps it is just me and opening a ‘bigdude’ shop in Sydney is the beginning of my fortune. Apart from having a decent business sense, I have absolutely zero fashion sense (my work and university brothers can attest to that). In the end, it is the observation of a shortage and the fact that no one is acting on it. From the previous part we can see that apart from a bad sense of business, these fashion stores are catering to ego, which is not a crime, or wrong and as such, they should not be legislated against, no wrong is done.

This gets us to the last part in all this. Again, the outrage given is all emotional, when Katie Hopkins decided in her act of ‘fatshaming’, she did one thing the other ‘fatshamers’ never did. She gained 4 stones (28 Kg), only to prove she could lose it again. Of all places, this comes from the daily mail (I am now ignoring the foul taste in my mouth for mentioning them). The quote “Meanwhile, weight loss expert Steve Miller, who fronts TV show Fat Families, said Katie’s latest project shows a ‘shallow’ approach to weight loss and does not take into account the emotional mindset of those who struggle to lose weight“. I am not sure if I can agree with Steve Miller. At least Katie Hopkins is going that distance. Now, I will also consider that certain elements are ignored, but I will get to that. One quote that touches on this is “To try to define all those who are overweight as somehow lazy or lacking in will power does a huge disservice to the experts who have made tackling obesity their focus” (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2740537/People-say-Youre-lucky-youre-skinny-Katie-Hopkins-piles-four-stone-overweight-people-fat-fault.html). Yet, there is something in the approach that Katie Hopkins takes. If she pulls it off, it means that sometimes we all need a harsh kick to our sizeable arses. I do believe her view is slightly too simplistic, yet in all this, there is also the issue with Steve Miller, some will see his view as exploitative. A long term ‘sandwich’ so to speak. I cannot vouch for his success of lack there off, but the less than 1% of the successes show a certain type. This does not make for his failure, but in equal measure it would not stop the success of Katie Hopkins. Perhaps they are two different sides of the same coin.

What started on a mere margin of fashion is now something larger, a mere supersized trip on a massive group of people (pun intended) where we see the shifting sands of enabling, the absence of enabling and the dangers if legislation gets too involved. The models might be on the other side of that equation. Yet when we try to visualise this (with http://www.bmivisualizer.com/), when we look at the BMI tool, set it to female and add the details of Charli Howard (173/50), we get a dangerous underweight. Now we get into the field that ‘Employment arrangements, work conditions and health inequalities‘ brings. People in this field are increasingly in danger of: Inhibited growth and development, fragile bones, a weakened immune system, anaemia and fertility issues. So, tell me, which model contract has been mentioning these dangers to the teenage working population? In addition, when we get her to the earliest healthy point, we see that 5Kg was all it takes, the other opposite of the scale tends to be well over 15Kg too much. The scales are more than unbalanced. Yet in all this, the official words of Caroline Nokes are not here. They were: “Legislation should be a last resort, but I’m conscious the fashion industry isn’t responding to calls for change, we would prefer a code of conduct, if we could feel confident it would be adhered to”, it is exactly the issues that I raised. On her site (http://carolinenokes.com/), additional information is found, the French position where models with an BMI under 18 are not allowed to work, the solution seems to work (check it with the BMI tool), even though the measure can be just under the bar, it is at all times minimal. If our lives are measured on health, perhaps starting with the limitation that only healthy models can participate, a change can begin that others will see a shift towards the leaner side of life. Whether the approach of Katie Hopkins holds any water remains to be seen. If we believe her words, than she is now the new Jesus. Well, that works nicely for me, because Father Clayton and Bishop Terry know that I work for ‘the’ other side, so as I serve Morax, I would enjoy nailing her to the nearest cross I can find (any of the wooden support beams of St. Pauls will do). Our heavenly father will forgive me, because that is what he does. How did religion get into this? Simple, you and me we must live through faith, in most cases merely the faith in ourselves (as my exams are showing me harshly) is the number one act that makes for change, in addition, we need to have a sense of humour, if you doubt that, than ask the guards at the Vatican whom I told I was ordered by the Bishop of Rome to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel White. As a true follower of the Cheshire cat, it seemed, in contrast to the queen of hearts that something needed to be painted, I decided a ceiling to be white. Let’s face it, after 510 years the IP of Michelangelo has lapsed, time for something new!

If you wonder now, why this step? Consider that the figure of absolutely not skinny was all the rage in 1500, so as we now find that part to be too offensive, let’s do away with all positive images that the Rubenesque age gave us. I will let you figure out the final puzzle that I left intertwined within the religious references.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as "Employment arrangements, Abigail McKnight, americanapparel, Bigdudeclothing.co.uk, Bishop Terry, Carles Muntaner, Caroline Nokes, Charli Howard, David Jones, fashion, Father Clayton, fatshaming, instituteofhealthequity.org, Joan Benach, Johannes Siegrist, Katie Hopkins, Men’s Health magazine, Myers, obesity, Peter Goldblatt, QVB building, Romsey and Southampton North, Rubenesque, the Guardian, Toby Wiseman, work conditions and health inequalities", World Square Shopping Centre

October 14, 2015 · 00:20

A lesson learned late

We all have this, we stump our heads into a wall, some in ignorance, some through stubbornness, ideologically and the last group through determination. I am one of these four. As I bring the bad news first, I need to talk about myself. I got an extension on a test which might not be a massive one in points, but I am in a state where every point counts! Hoping to save up to 15 points on a test 44 pages long. My little big horn is a ‘Memorandum of Detailed Opinion‘. I still have 30 hours of work actual to go and I had to restart as I was turning my ‘Other Applicable Revocation Issues’ into a mesh of Titanic distraught and the deep dark feeling when you are at the top of a truly high building (like the Hancock building) and you see the street 100 flights down, that one step through the glass looks suddenly so appealing, such dread! I feel a little better, especially as I started fresh again, things are slowly adding up, connections are now coming to life. the smallest issue I had initially was a part in section 40 of the Patents Act 1990 ‘disclose the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention‘, this and a personal believe that my professor was intertwining ‘best method’ with the mathematical approach to describing Cantonese had an impact too. Yet those feelings were all between my own ears. You see, this is the first subject ever in history, where I got confronted with the limitation of my thinking. This has never happened before! We all face the music that we do not get something, but in most cases someone explains, someone aides or you find a supporting document that helps you. We all have that. No, I mean that feeling you get when your life depends on the next conversation and the one part you were not told is that everyone speaks Aramaic, that level of non-comprehension!

Yet, I also feel stronger today, because the light suddenly came on and I am starting to put it together. I took longer than I expected and if I had not been confronted with bad news last week that stress would not have stopped me from completing my assignment. Getting told you need to find another apartment tends to do that to a person whilst his exam just started. So as I finished my notes for tonight, prepping to get loads done tomorrow, I had to write this. You see, this intersects with something I read yesterday on my mobile, I believe.

That part was about Xbox boss Phil Spencer. Microsoft has always been about ideology and ignorance, so to call this part ideological ignorance is not too big a leap. Spencer stated that he was not interested in beating Sony, he was interested in gaining customers, as many as possible. In my view, his predecessors ‘messed’ it all up. I reckon not intentionally. In my view Microsoft was convinced that the TPP would have been in effect now and the steps initially made towards the XB1 would have been massively exploitative, with the law allowing them to destroy certain markets (the preowned game market for one). This all took a step back towards a streaming enterprise that did not quite make it off the floor. The 2013 promise of a 300,000 servers for gamers in one cloud. The quote is in light of the backwards compatibility claim a little hilarious: “Microsoft’s Don Mattrick stated “If you’re backwards compatible, you’re really backwards”” (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/05/24/spin-dryers-by-microsoft/). Even then I claimed how stupid the 500 GB thought was. Sony made the same mistake, but with the Sony version a person can update when he/she is ready, the XB1 does not allow for that. In that same article I chewed on some of the presented facts: “Their on-line system is now getting grown from the initial 15,000 servers now that Xbox 360 uses, to 300,000 servers from the moment the next Xbox is launched. It is a 2,000% growth in data collection and over 200,000% storage capacity. If foundations of business are set to return-on-investment, then ask yourself why a gaming system requires that level of growth“, a question that was never answered, but with the TPP, the streaming and the data requirements, it was about the gamer, it was how he/she could best be exploited. That was the view that my mind saw and so far I have been proven correct in almost every way. The next quote supports all this “In all honesty Microsoft Marketing did state that there will be pre-owned possibilities, yet they have not officially stated how this EXACTLY will play out, so we await clarity by Microsoft“, consider that part, if the TPP would have been in effect that part would have costed gamers dearly, so in all this, we can speculate that Don Mattrick was no more than the bearer of bad news and his career took a massive tumble. Now we get Phil Spencer and how this is about gamers. A 2 year stretch that now demands a 145 degree course adjustment. The weird thing is that if the decision makers realised their audience in the era of Xbox and Xbox 360, they should have known what gamers wanted, and adjusting that with their own view of exploitation is a misplaced view to say the least.

So as I see myself ignorant and determined, I also see Microsoft as ideologically ignorant. Ideological in their pursuit of maximising profit any way they can and ignorant to consider that gamers would take this lying down. Microsoft now set at less than 40% of what Sony has, losing the market share the 360 had grown, how stupid is that? The big issue is still that Mettrick and Spencer leave the feeling of being no more than puppets on a string, jumping to the needs of the decision makers behind the screens of Microsoft. Their strings to be cut at a moment’s notice. It is the second failing compared to Sony. Yet, in all this I must admit that Sony is likely to work in similar ways, but in a much better setting as their focus has been the gamer for 4 iterations of their console. That does account for something.

I feel that I learned my lesson late, hopefully not too late and the next two weeks will be about work 24%, study 48% and the rest is about trying to get sleep, food and an apartment. I feel strengthened as my eyes open towards the issues I could not solve for almost 10 days. I also feel better as Microsoft seems oblivious towards the gain they lost whilst they should have known better, in that respect Gamespot (who was source to most of the Microsoft information) should also have known better and as they seem to hide behind the PS4 vs XB1 console war, they have done too little regarding the investigation on the business decisions that did hurt a contending console and forced it towards a gloomier place. We can all admit that backwards compatibility will gain them momentum, yet in the end it will be about good games and yes, Microsoft has done a decent job, but with the lost field, decent will not hack it.

So I end this article with a personal message to Phil Spencer. Phil, I am not blaming you (which would be unfair), I am not having a go at you (which would be too easy), yet I will do your job for you this one instance. There is a game coming, it is nowhere near ready at present, but it is getting there. It is for PC and it has the option of becoming every bit as addictive as Minecraft currently is. So another masterpiece by an indie developer! The game is called Heat Signature as it shows massive promise. This game could propel the XB1 even further. The quirkiness and the connected options for multiplayer could be next thing people desire. The single player part is showing real promise. So instead of waiting and having to shell out another 2 billion for a game Microsoft didn’t create, so how about getting in front of a repetitive timeline for a change?

Heat Signature (heatsig.com) is able to be uniquely placed next to Elite Dangerous, Eve Online, Star Citizen and No Mans Sky. It can exist next to all of them and will be as entertaining to all those who play the other mentioned titles. I suggest that you keep your eye on @HeatSig (Twitter address) and feel free not heeding my word (I have only been wrong 4 times in the last 30 years when it comes to gaming), so I am due another failure. Yet the stats go hugely my way and as such I predict that Heat Signature, a Tom Francis production which was, as I remember it a Johnny Chiodini discovery evolve into a true contender for being the next big thing (as an indie developer title).

In all this, am I too ideological when it comes to gaming? That is a fair question and I must ask this from myself if I want to remain connected to a field I have been involved in since 1983. I believe so and games like Fallout 4 show my view to be a good one. In equal part Elite Dangerous shows that true passion for a game can last decades (something Blizzard also proved with the Diablo series) and in all this Ubisoft squandered it and Microsoft rejected their view only to get bitten on their sitting area really hard. The future belongs to the believers, because faith has always been the most pure and natural driving force. It got me my law degree it got me to the final stage of my MIP and it can get anyone to their place of achievement. Greed is never an achievement! Will Microsoft learn from their mistakes? That remains dubious because the puppeteers behind the screens remain an unknown. I do believe that illuminating them could shed light on the problem and truly propel the world of gamers forward as the onslaught of counterproductive acts end up getting terminated with extreme prejudice. EA has 7 months left to learn their lesson and not fall into the traps with Mass Effect Andromeda, traps that Ubisoft seems to be unable to avoid. Still, if they are unable to do that, John Oliver will be able to have a little fun here too.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law

Tagged as Blizzard, Diablo, Don Mattrick, Elite: Dangerous, Eve Online, Heat Signature, John Oliver, Johnny Chiodini, Mass Effect Andromeda, Microsoft, Minecraft, No man's sky, Patents Act 1990, Phil Spencer, PlayStation 4, Sony, Star Citizen, Tom Francis, TPP, Trans Pacific Partnership, Ubisoft, xbox 360, Xbox One

October 12, 2015 · 18:51

Identitatis simplifico

You know, I have rented places all over the world. The US, the UK, Netherlands and Sweden. So when the BBC article ‘Landlord rent checks could cause ‘everyday racism’, Labour warns’ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34498836) passed my screen, I was a little confused. That confusion did not go away with the quote “But shadow home secretary Andy Burnham told the Independent on Sunday it could cause problems for “anyone with a foreign-sounding name”“, he has been on my radar before (‘Dr Temp MD‘ at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/03/dr-temp-md/), where Brandy Human (read: anagram) seemed to imply that the mysteries of the spread sheet had not been revealed to him by this universe, but I digress. How can a foreign sounding name be an issue? You see, I have at all times been required to show proper identification, in my situation a valid passport. So why would there be an issue? The quote “Mr Burnham, describing the bill as “disproportionate, divisive, deceitful”, said: “The aim of the Immigration Bill is to make Britain a ‘hostile environment’ for illegal migrants”“, which does not even sound nice. I remember the issue that being somewhere illegally was, you know illegal. Hence the ‘stigma’ that there is. And in addition, why should illegality be protected or encouraged? Let’s state that this is indeed the case. Mr Damn Ah-by-Nun who came towards the UK illegally, goes towards the first legal centre he can find, or church for that matter and states: “I got here illegal, I am applying for refugee status“, now we have ourselves an old fashioned horse race. The proper people get informed, and Mr Ah-by-Nun goes into the refugee system and that person gets processed. You see, perhaps over simplified, but at no point was a rental place required. When we look that the UNHCR site we see “Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. People who don’t qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported” this is often the problem. We might state that they know that they are not allowed, but the fear that these people have also makes them not investigate as ignorance is key for many of these people, do they qualify for refugee status?

The UK defines the eligibility of a refugee as: “This persecution must be because of one of the following:

race
religion
nationality
political opinion

membership of a particular social group that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, eg your gender, gender identity, sexual orientation”

Basically Syria is in a war, it sounds extremely inhumane, but that does not qualify. We can argue that as the war is based on political opinion, the verdict of eligibility should be yes. It is a thin wire to consider; yet as UK political views are against Assad, their plight has a much better chance. So they can go through the refugee system. At any point, they would have either a place to stay, an option to stay or proper paperwork, so the issue of Andy Burnham does not hold ground.

The response is also clear. We see the quote: “A Home Office spokesman said: “The government has made clear that the Right to Rent scheme is about reducing illegal migrants’ access to services – it has never been targeted at people with a lawful right to be in the UK”“, which makes sense, because people with a right to be in the UK will have the proper papers (like a VISA). The Guardian also took a look about 6 weeks ago with ‘The UK’s new immigration bill creates perfect conditions for slavery to thrive’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/aug/28/slavery-uk-immigration-act-2014-hostile-environment-undocumented-migrants-focus-on-labour-exploitation-flex). They are making a much better case. This would indeed be a danger, or would it? You see, true refugees can as far as I can tell still get into the refugee system when they register themselves. This means that once in the system, they either get their papers, or they get ‘replaced’.

One of the quotes I had an issue with was: “The prime minister says he wants to use the immigration bill to tackle the undocumented migrants who undercut the wages of British workers. Yet the cruel irony is that, far from preventing illegal working, the ‘hostile environment’ is creating conditions in which slavery can flourish“. This is a fair call and stating anything to the contrary or making some smart remark will not go far here. We can postulate that the Immigration Bill is making a first step in making it harder to stash away these slave labourers, but it is by no means their only option (for the slavers I mean) so there is a long way to go and with rental pressures it could make a difference. Is that true in the end remains to be seen.

It is the final quote that makes the difference as Caroline Robinson states: “A recent parliamentary answer showed that from January to June this year, just 28 out of 987 employers who were issued a ‘civil penalty notice’ for employing people without permission to work in the UK paid the full amount. This creates a win-win situation for unscrupulous employers, who can maximise profits by exploiting undocumented workers and then report them for deportation if they dare to demand decent labour conditions“. That path becomes a bit of an issue when these labourers have no place to stay, pushing the pressure in another direction. It will not be enough by itself, but it could be the start of closing the options for these unscrupulous employers.

Yet, it was not Andy Burnham that came with that part, Caroline Robinson brought valid points 6 weeks before Andy Burnham failed to make one. It seems to me that he missed the boat and the train all in one topic.

The independent shows the quote: “As Labour’s motion on Tuesday will make clear, we are prepared to support the Government where it has proportionate proposals to tackle illegal immigration, strengthen our borders and stop the exploitation of migrants by unscrupulous employers and landlords. But what we will never be prepared to do is let the Government pander to prejudice and legislate in haste to entrench the kind of casual discrimination which the Prime Minister claims to oppose“, the quote remains the issue, it is all about emotion and not about facts. the part ‘to entrench the kind of casual discrimination’ has no connection when a rent applicant has a proper VISA/legal papers. How can this be discrimination?

Now there will be many that shout outraged and a list comes, but it will be an emotional list. If there is one issue that is valid is that by itself the immigration bill will not work, more work is needed. Yet, what are the facts? The overview as published (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/462004/Immigration_Bill_Factsheet_01_-_overarching.pdf), shows one part that matters. “The Bill complements the immediate action we are taking to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees and further secure border control in Calais“. As stated before, this bill does not stop refugees; it is a first step in taking care of the people with unsubstantiated asylum claims, whilst opening these options for the valid Syrian refugees. In the end, with the housing pressure as is, 20,000 refugees will place a serious pressure on housing. It is about the services becoming available to those who should be getting them.

Can we state that there will be pressures and that some will get hurt in the process? That cannot be denied, yet the overall issue is the illegal part, contrary to or forbidden by law is more than a term. It is set situation that the UK, the commonwealth nations and many other nations are nations of laws. These laws have been trampled on for a long time and this change is likely only a first step in thwarting illegal immigration and the pressure that this brings to the support system in the UK (as well as in many other nations). In the Netherlands there is a paper going round stating that illegal immigrants costs the Dutch treasury 7 billion Euro per annum. I will not go into this part, as there are some concerns as to how valid these numbers are, yet from more reliable sources we see that there is a massive shortcoming in medical care.

Again, we seem to be thwarting the issue at hand. These are not refugees, or asylum seekers; these are either rejected asylum seekers or people who entered the nation illegally. Is it too inhumane to consider the question why we cater to this group? I have never stood against giving medical aid to the needy, the refugees, or even humanitarian medical aid in other nations. With all these options in play, why do we cater to criminals? It is slightly politically incorrect, but the foundation in all this is that many nations have overstretched their credit card by a lot, things have to change. In that I am willing to consider that some options should not be stopped. I would limit the influx of refugees, but in this day and age, as the Syrian situation becomes less and less humane, can we afford to say no here? These are at least valid refugees, but at some point, one part has to give way. The immigration bill is a first step. I feel certain that if the financial situation was not the way it was this might not be playing, but that is not the hand Europe overall has been dealt.

In all this I see that many sources go into the emotional state. In here I would like to try and raise the issue of Mohammed Zulfiqar, who smuggled himself into the UK on a false passport, got a woman pregnant as fast as possible (5 times) and now even though through criminal means, he now uses Article 8, ‘the right to family life’, of the European Convention on Human Rights legislation to demand the Home Office allow him to stay in Britain. My issue is that only places like the Express and the Daily Mail seems to have taken a shine to this, as such, the source becomes unreliable pretty fast. The final quote in the express is “Last year 200 offenders, including rapists and muggers, ≠successfully challenged removal from Britain by citing Article 8“.

In my article ‘Cleaning House!‘ on July 1st 2014 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/07/01/cleaning-house/), I stated a change to the act. I opted for 2 changes. The first one: ‘3. In case of conviction of a serious crime, that nation can decide to ignore rule 1, providing a connection to a long term partner and the existence of biological off spring, born in that nation, not criminally conceived has been established.’ would take care of rapers, yet in this case Mohammed Zulfiqar could still remain. However the second change:

‘ARTICLE 12 Right to marry,

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right

The right to marry is temporary postponed if one or both persons have been deprived of his/her liberty by arrest or detention, until 6 months after release and was not been deported because of these events

Paragraph 2 will not be valid, if a court has ordered the release of the involved parties due to non-lawful detention’

In here a fourth point would need to be added:

The right to marry is only valid when both parties are legal residents of that nation.

Now we have a solution! Actually it is only one of two places. It does not need to be added in article 12, the simple provision that UK registration for marriage must be done with official papers should be more than enough.

Gee, took me 5 minutes to get this ball settled, why have the lawmakers not been more astute in solving this? With these amendments there is a proper humanitarian law, you see, humanitarian law gives too much protection too criminals and not enough consideration to the victims. How is that humanitarian in any way shape or form?

In all this more is needed, but until The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg realises that catering to criminal elements is a first likely cause for nations to start rejecting Humanitarian law, their Ivory tower will only continue to falter and crash. There have been several levels of criticism towards the ECHR in the past and that would never go away. Any nation that deals with the ECRH tends to see the ECRH cases as an invasion to their national laws. In my view, another side should be regarded. The ECHR building’s use of glass implies the openness of the court to European citizens. Yet in my view, this ‘transparency’ gives options for criminals to plot their path, whilst the solidity of glass becomes a fence holding captive the victims of those criminal transgressions. We could consider Mohammed Zulfiqar to be the lower grade transgressor, depending on the rights of the ‘wife’/’spawner’ of his UK residency ticket. The story from 2011 involving Akindoyin Akinshipe, then 24 year old who got to stay as his rape resulted in childbirth, so what about that 13 year old girl? How did the ECHR protect her?

How do the two issues relate? The ECHR is all about setting the rights of a humane foundation; I do not disagree or disapprove of that notion, yet the foundation is not correctly set. The transgressions from illegal and criminal act do not invalidate certain steps. The ECHR falls short here. Even though we accept article 12: ‘Right to marry’, ‘Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right’. We see the failing that the ‘Marriages and civil partnerships in the UK’ (at https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/giving-notice-at-your-local-register-office) does not mention or give proper direction that Marriages and Civil partnerships in the UK the need that both partners must be valid residents of the UK at time of registration, failure to do so would result in nullification of marriage and residency rights. The added issue ‘You can only give notice at a register office if you have lived in the registration district for at least the past 7 days‘ is something that needs addressing for the simple reason is that the added ‘and can prove your legal residency in the UK through proper identification and residency permits‘. All that could have prevented several issues (and avoid a few Strasbourg cases too I reckon).

Identitatis simplifico (meaning simplify identity) is about the rights to be in a place, which seems to leave the illegal immigrant out in the cold. Yet in all this, my choice is simple. If the choice is to leave either the refugee or the illegal immigrant out in the cold, than I am all for giving that extra mile to the refugee, who has seen their ordeal and have miles to go before they get to sleep, that is humanitarian in its foundation. The first step in dealing with the criminal element is to no longer cater to them. That part seems to elude Andy Burnham by a lot, but I could be wrong!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Akindoyin Akinshipe, Andy Burnham, Caroline Robinson, Mohammed Zulfiqar, UNHCR

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives