Category Archives: Law

April 3, 2016 · 14:10

The Medic and the Medici

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it fair?

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

March 26, 2016 · 23:03

How to see ‘facts’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

March 21, 2016 · 22:21

Is the truth out there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We see the following under the key findings:

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

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

Yet how were these numbers derived?

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

March 19, 2016 · 23:57

Return of the Crusades?

You might laugh about all this, but I am not convinced. When I look back in time trying to seek that past I see a part that is different. I remember the stories as they come through the history of Richard I and especially his part in the Crusades, not as a Disney figure. There was the story of the Crusader in Jeans and a few more; stories that involve An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, a person many in the west will know as Saladin.

You see, the generation that followed will know him as a name in assassins Creed, or a man of Charisma in Kingdom of Heaven (masterfully played by Ghassan Massoud). We see the names of people as they are paraded in front of our eyes, but the reality is that they represent lessons we forgot and we are about to relive them in other ways, the more the world changes, the more it stays the same. Or in the quote of one of my personal favourite video games: ‘War never changes!‘

This started in part through a few article that I saw this evening. The first one is from Cal Thomas, he gives us (at http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/thomas-iran-s-missiles-and-the-nuclear-deal/article_50482e79-7496-5b29-b92c-ce7616f9f8c6.html) the following: “More sober thinkers, fearing Tehran would never comply with the agreement, envisioned Iran gaining access to $100 billion in frozen assets and using it to underwrite terrorism” as well as “Last week, as part of a military exercise, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard launched several medium- and short-range missiles capable of reaching Israel“, here he also quotes the Washington Post stating that these missiles can now reach Israel. The quote “exceed limits that the U.N. Security Council has imposed in connection to resolutions banning Iran from developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads“. In my view any denial from Iran is empty for a few simple re-engineering reasons, a mere formality that could be achieved in as little as 2 days (when the elements are available). The quoted opposition from the Democratic Party being “an Obama administration spokesman claimed to be unaware of any missile launch“. Here is where the problem sits from my point of view. The American President was so eager to score any kind of points, he opened a door that should have been left alone. Not for those in charge of Iran now, but any extreme individual that follows. Perhaps the president remembers Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or perhaps he is slightly too busy as he is trying to remember the waitresses working on 660 N Wells St, Chicago? I do not know, I am merely asking.

You see, many saw Iran as an option, but too many people in dire economic need were too willing to give away the farm in the process. These same group of people who are now in denial! For those in doubt who to believe, see the Washington Post (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-vows-to-keep-firing-ballistic-missiles/2016/03/10/77a3edac-e708-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html). Whilst politically flaccid US is talking to flaccid counterpart the U.N. Security Council on what is another landmark screw up by those greedy for economic benefits.

The evidence?

This is a valid question! This blog cannot be a rant, not be some conjecture. Consider the quote “The resolution’s language allows Iran to argue its ballistic missiles are not “designed” to carry nuclear warheads“, so we see another case where ‘resolution language’ basically means, the failed attempt for proper governing, to be placed within ambiguous legislative agreements. Like the EU for example. The fact that Greece could not be removed, because there was no way out. Now we get voluntarily removal from nations themselves (UK likely in June), which is what I mean with flaccid legislation!

So when we see the Washington Post with the quotes “According to Hajizadeh, some of the missiles carried 24 warheads and one ton of TNT” and “the Revolutionary Guards fired two ballistic missiles, including one with graffiti saying “Israel should be wiped off the earth” written in Hebrew on it“, Consider 24 warheads and 1000Kg of TNT. This is the danger I warned for! I did so on July 8^th 2015 in my article ‘In the lull of news‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/07/08/in-the-lull-of-news/). Now we have missiles with threats and whilst the Iranians contemplate to replace 1,000 Kg of TNT, with 724 Kg of Erythritol Tetranitrate and add 270Kg of Strontium 90 pellets, we get a new application of a shotgun, more important, a missile with claymore capabilities. You might think that this causes little harm. Think again, this would for all intent and purpose be a dirty bomb. Whilst these flaccid politicians debate ‘nuclear warheads‘ two Iranian missiles could irradiate Israel from Rishon LeTsiyon to Ramat Hasharon. Basically Tel Aviv and everything around it would be irradiated through metal pellets for decades and after 3-4 decades Iran claims that part in the name of Allah. That was the nightmare all along and a bankrupt America seems to be at present, to be in denial of too many events from Europe to Eastern China. I wonder who is actually minding the store over there.

Now you might also wonder how this material is obtained. You see strontium 90 is not a natural product. In this case Strontium 90 is just an example, even though it does not require military grade uranium, you see, it can be gotten from spend uranium fuel cells. Now consider that the USNRC gives us “There is no commercial reprocessing of nuclear power fuel in the United States at present; almost all existing commercial high-level waste is un-reprocessed spent fuel“, which is not the only nation that has it. So how guarded are these spent fuel cells? More important, who is checking the inventory and how easily can a few hundred Kg go missing? Now ask the additional question on how much fission (non-military grade) did Iran create from 2013 onwards (see the picture at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-installs-more-advanced-centrifuges-for-uranium-enrichment-amid-nuclear-standoff-diplomats-say/), where we see a 2008 picture stating ‘Natanz uranium enrichment facilities‘, so how much spend fuel is there and how much Strontium-90 could Iran have now?

It seems to me that these facts should have been known for a very long time. Do you still think that the debate on what constitutes a ‘nuclear warhead‘ is valid?

So, there is plenty of evidence, does it fit together?

That is the second question and an equally valid one. You see, there is only a 42% chance that a missile with 24 warheads will be intercepted 100%, more important, the delivery system will be over Israel, the pallets will still fall, but will not create a curtain. I reckon that 2 missiles fired will have around 29%-34% to be 100% intercepted. So no matter how this goes, we will have a massive amount of damage in Israel. Will we idly stand by to see Israel fall away, to see the Christian icons of history fall away? I think not. In that regard we would steer directly for a new age of Crusades, war never changes!

Now in all clarity and honesty. There is absolutely NO given information that this comes to pass. Yet, can we take that chance? Should US policy have been allowed to put Israel in such danger? So when we hear the words from President Obama on how hard we EU needs to stick together, consider how much credibility he has. Consider the legislation he never passed, corporate greed he never stopped, how Iran is moving to be nuclear capable, how his administration endangered the state of Israel, how he has done little to nothing regarding Syria and how our holy sites will be in direct danger. All massive failures!

The worst part in all this is that the next administration has little chance of cleaning up the mess this administration leaves behind, because when the Euro goes, so does the Dollar!

Should you think that Iran has no intentions here, consider their own words on the missile ‘Israel should be wiped off the earth‘, and was my initial consideration that the next elected president of Iran possibly to be a radical like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that far-fetched? You think that a commanding officer (read General) would have allowed any text on his missile without his agreement?

You cannot be that naive!

There is one light in all this, you see Iran has an opponent. As they have been clashing arms with the forces of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, they cannot make much headway on Israel. Yet in all this, as a war with Iran becomes a reality at that point, it seems to me that Russia will step back. No matter how Iran thinks it has Russia as a friend, it will not allow itself to be tainted by the fallout Iran would create. What will happen is that we all will be confronted with around a million angry Israelites, a nation that, at that point will no longer regard the US as a friend or ally. Whatever plays after that is too chaotic to make any clear projection on, I only know that it will get very ugly.

What is a given is that those who did fumble the ball will be confronted with nations angry and eager (through fear) to cast war on Iran on that point. No matter how much restraint requests we hear from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, he will be faced with a very angry world, because those who needed to step in decided to wage a ‘war of words’ with people who are basically deaf and will only seek the sound of actual war.

I wonder how this president sees his legacy and when things go south, which excuse he will offer. This is for the mere reason that any following successful missile launch will be the clearest signal to be seen as evidence that the USA is no longer a superpower and it can no longer actually act. I wonder how the world will act at that point, because someone would have to spearhead a direct assault on Iran, any direct attack on Israel from Iran makes that a given. If not, does this mean that Israel truly stands alone again?

It would be the most shameful and darkest day in history of the western world the moment the answer to that question becomes ‘Yes!’

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, Cal Thomas, Democratic Party, Erythritol Tetranitrate, Ghassan Massoud, Hajizadeh, Iran, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Israel, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Natanz, President Obama, Ramat Hasharon. Tel Aviv, Richard I, Rishon LeTsiyon, Russia, Saladin, Strontium, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Security Council, USNRC, Washington Post

March 14, 2016 · 20:17

Corporate Cowardice

The Guardian had a very nice article online, in addition to that article there was a video. The article titled ‘The macabre truth of gun control in the US is that toddlers kill more people than terrorists do‘ was the eye catcher, an article by Lindy West (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do). For the most it was a straight forward article. What was the issue was seen in the video by Rupert Neate who went to Las Vegas to take a look at the fair (I am slightly jealous now). An interesting quote here was from Neil Hogue from Hogue Inc. who stated “fear drives sales in the firearms industry“, well-spoken Mr Hogue I say! This is a truth. I ‘love’ firearms because of the engineering. Consider a pellet (read: bullet) that can be delivered to a spot within half an inch over a distance of 800 metres. That ability, the skill needed from focus, the maintenance of your rifle and the balance of all these elements to deliver an outside hit in exactly that place with changing weather conditions is the skill I love. I believe it to be a gift. This does not make me nuts! If NATO needed me to shoot people, I would. If the challenge is to shoot a piece of carton I would and providing it is for food (not for sport) I would shoot Bambi in a heartbeat (for the Bambi burger mind you). I will not end the life of anything for mere sport, which I regard to be actually quite sick. Then at 2:27 in that video we get Smith & Wesson, Mr. Jan Mladek. I think that Mladek dealt wrongly with the issue from square one. I do not know whether he was the one who caused the change, yet there is clarity in the video that the organisers dealt poorly with the issue, although the approach they took, regarding the optional possibility of chaos was not incorrect, the entire matter had been badly dealt with. From the view given, it was Smith & Wesson who could be regarded as the party hiding via corporate cowardice. Within me I wonder how Heckler & Koch would have dealt with it. I saw a much better answer, a decently serious answer from Joe Gaicevic from Troy Industries. He states “blaming a spoon on making somebody fat”. Here is another person hitting the nail on the head. You see, guns do not kill people, people kill people. Do you think that any politician in a declining economy wants gun control? A valid branch bringing in billions in tax dollars every year. Politically speaking, it was ‘the Daily Signal‘ who gives us ‘NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Says Obama’s Knowledge on Guns ‘Wouldn’t Fill a Thimble’‘ (at http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/04/nra-head-wayne-lapierre-says-obamas-knowledge-on-guns-wouldnt-fill-a-thimble/), which is as direct as it gets. Wayne LaPierre stated “We know a liar when we see one. We also know a political coward when we see one”, yet in all this he also misses a more important point. It is corporate cowardice. You see, many in the arms industry want income but have no regard of any kind for critical questions, you see, in my book, if you cannot deal with those you have no business being in that business. Which is the part the interview with Rupert Neate uncovered. When we see that the smaller players (Neil Hogue and Joe Gaicevic) give perfectly rational response, we need to ask additional questions regarding Jan Mladek from Smith & Wesson. The fact that he is mentioned as ‘marketing’ makes me wonder whether Mr Mladek is in the right vocation, perhaps selling Philips Hairstylers is more his tune (and will lead towards much less confronting questions).

So where am I in this?

Yes, we can agree that Smith & Wesson will take a hit when one of their products is used in a shooting. In this case the Smith & Wesson M&P15. It was not the only weapon used, so other weapons were used too, like the DPMS Panther Arms A15. In equal measure we must acknowledge the following facts “they made a modification that defeated the ban on detachable magazines” as well as a failed attempt to make the firearm fully automatic. So we have here a valid firearm that was altered making it no longer a permissible firearm. So the weapon was a no longer standard sporting rifle (not my choice of sporting rifle). Smith & Wesson bungled here as the facts would have given them a positive view on the ways that their weapon was not meant for such use. When considering the words of Joe Gaicevic I would state: “if you want to complain about being fat because it was easier to eat the ice-cream with a serving spoon and not with a table spoon, you only have yourself to thank for transgressing beyond fat!”

In equal measure, we can look at the first instance that linked this article. It was regarding Jamie Gilt and how her 4 year old shot her in the back. The quote that I regarded as funny was “People are trying to make it into something it’s not, we are not criminals, we are the victims here” (source: Daily Mail). In my view, no, she is the criminal. Not only did she leave a loaded weapon within reach of her 4 year old. She neglected basic gun safety. You see, her 4 year old would not have been strong enough to cock the slider, meaning no bullet in the chamber, in the second, it would have been an option for her kid to play with it, look into the hole and accidentally pulling the trigger. She might look sexy as hell holding a 9mm and having a .223 rifle at her side. The text “the more I learn about my government, the more I love my guns!” completes the view. She would have scored more points advocating gun safety rules. Those 10 pesky points that keep other people from getting killed with the additional by-line ‘Oops!’, America is a gun nation, let’s just accept that and instead of rushing to blame every spoon in the land for obesity, how about holding the transgressors accountable for their actions? As a second point of scolding towards Wayne LaPierre I would raise the quote “His knowledge on that issue wouldn’t fill a thimble“, Wayne, please do not insult the thimble, you need a much smaller scale of measurement in this instance.

What does matter is the quote “LaPierre challenged Obama a week later to debate him on firearms with “no pre-screened questions and no gas bag answers”“, this is the issue. It is easy scoring political points shedding tears for dead people, yet the real issue is the one we see with: “another gun law isn’t going to prevent crimes committed with firearms” which is the truth and at the heart of the matter. His correct answer is “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun“, which is why they have police officers. Now, there is no denying that in the US police officers have made mistakes, some whoppers I might add. Yet the people should also realise that legislation has done (pardon my French) ‘fuck all’ to the safety and security of police officers at a pay of roughly $66K a year. This might sound nice, but in the larger cities $66K gets you a far below average apartment, even when moving towards the edge of the city you would be hard pressed to find decent accommodation. So explain to me how these people are regarded to take beyond reasonable risks? The problem here is that for well over two years it has been known that the data collection regarding fatal shootings is massively flawed, so there are levels of uncertainty here too.

The police shows that there is an overall stigma on a national level when we look at fatal shootings. The San Bernardino event is an extreme, just like Columbine is. In both events this was due to illegally acquired weapons. So weapon laws would not have made an impact. People kill people, guns do not! The fact that the US has no less than 1.13 weapons for every American citizen, so we can rule out any effective gun control law from the very beginning, any re-purchase plan will make the US bankrupt overnight. By adjusting gun laws and making the owners of illegal firearms guilty of a capital crime would be a first step, but this democratic government is decently too cowardly to get such a plan in motion and at the end of the reign of Obama, in that view I personally reckon that the republicans will not show themselves to be a whole lot better. So the issue remains up in the sky.

There is however another side, the one that the government is in denial about. The fact that the Washington Post stated on October 5th 2015 that they were at that time looking at 2013 data. This means that the data, depending on when delivered is still 2 years late for any decent adjustment. This implies strongly that the ATF has issues it cannot deal with, which is nothing to say on the need of keeping a check on proper enforcement of gun rules. Weirdly enough, in all this, the bulk of gun owners have a clear established protocol in the proper handling of firearms. Rules that have been handed down from father to son and at times also from grandfather to grandson, a tradition still in play for several generations. I see this as a massive reason why people at large are so opposed to gun control laws to the extent President Obama is trying to push, which by the way, considering the amount of guns currently in circulation would not have any impact at all.

And this is not the only ’empty’ gesture he is making, he is about to make things worse by going to London in April to appeal to British voters to stay in the EU, that whilst he is unable to contain Wall Street greed and hold them accountable for plenty of these messes, as well as keeping a budget (like the bulk of the European nations). So good luck to that idea! The biggest over spender is trying to reason with voters regarding the economy and budgets. I reckon it will be entertaining to say the least, as every ill-conceived statement will drive people towards UKIP, Nigel will be so happy on Labour Day, it is likely to be a comedy of an entirely new level!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as ATF, Daily Mail, Daily Mail UK, Democratic Party, DPMS Panther Arms A15, Heckler & Koch, Hogue Inc, Jamie Gilt, Jan Mladek, Joe Gaicevic, Lindy West, Neil Hogue, Nigel Farage, NRA, President Obama, Rupert Neate, San Bernardino Massacre, Smith & Wesson, Smith & Wesson M&P15, the Columbine Massacre, the Daily Signal, the Guardian, Troy Industries, UKIP, Washington Post, Wayne LaPierre

March 12, 2016 · 12:53

A dangerous sense of humour

On one side, we need to laugh every so often, laughter is good for the soul they say, yet, when the press and the media get involved in this situation, there is a real danger where they can actually make things worse. This has been proven on several occasions in the past, in several nations. You see, I agree, Conan was funny, introducing Adolf Hitler (Sarah Silverman) was hilarious and it was comedy. Nobody denies this! The issue is that it is also dangerous. The people are angry and they are not in the mood to trust anyone. Now here comes the loudmouthing blunt Trump. We see the thoughts of the American public like it is a cartoon text balloon. ‘He, doesn’t need the money‘, ‘he is already a success‘, ‘perhaps he figured it out‘, ‘what do those wannabe’s know?’ It is the last thought in all of this. Libertarians who threw the people to the wolves for high moral plans no one could afford, at the same time Wall-Street keeps on doing what it is doing with no accountability in sight. There are racial issues, there are inequality issues. The people are very angry and people like Conan know that, they hope that with a laugh and a smile it will go away. It is too late for that, the comedians will need to get serious for a while, if not, they end up having to deal with 4-8 years of Donald, not the Duck, the Trump and the fallout that follows!

You see, as a comedy there is a moment in Mel Brook’s ‘History of the world, part 1’ where we see the Roman senate, they are offered a question their response ‘Fuck the poor!’. To which we hear. ‘Excellent, now let’s get back to business’. That is exactly where America, Greece and many European nations are. I remain a little in doubt as to the drive of Japan, because I know too little there. The people are seeing their futures evaporate, their pensions will soon be lost and those who have no rainy day solution will work until they die.

That has become the reality of today and the people are, as I said before very very angry.

In the Netherlands we see a repeat of a different nature. I remember this the first time around, as I was there. In those days, an ultra-right wing bigot called ‘Janmaat’ was the problem. In those days clever politicians decided to ignore him completely, which I thought was a mistake, even as he was a loon to say the least. And I was proven right at the following elections he actually got three seats in a place called Schiedam. He actually ended up with a seat at the table. Now, as he was too extreme and outspoken lacking constraint and thought. He was for all intent and purposes the Dutch version of Jean-Marie Le Pen. Geert Wilder is another matter, like Marine Le Pen he is a lot more intelligent, which now gives us another problem as we see the issues escalate. When we see the Irish Times (at http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/rhetoric-against-geert-wilders-ratchets-up-in-the-netherlands-1.2531503), you could see this as an open and shut case. But it is not. The quote “Right-wing politician Geert Wilders has been described as “a threat to democracy and the rule of law” in the Netherlands after calling for “resistance” to the establishment of refugee centres to house migrants from Iraq and Syria“, the issue is not the quote, it is the context. Even as we see “The condemnation by the chairman of the Labour Party, Hans Spekman, came as a new survey showed that hundreds of local councillors are considering giving up politics because of credible physical threats against themselves and their families“.

The context is not given. Elsevier gives us: “De PVV heeft volgens velen grote invloed. PVV-oprichter en partijleider Geert Wilders gooit, zoals premier Mark Rutte (VVD) zei, geregeld een stuk ‘rood vlees in de arena’, waarna iedereen daarop duikt. Meestal leiden zijn uitspraken over immigratie, de islam, de Europese Unie en de elites tot ophef. Afgezien van dat verbale theater zijn de resultaten van tien jaar PVV desondanks bescheiden“, “{translated} According to many, the PVV has a lot of influence, Prime Minister Rutte states: Geert Wilders throws a piece of red meat into the arena, and everyone is going for it. Often enough the quotes are related to immigration, Islam, the EEC and the elite. Beyond that the results of 10 years of PVV presence is modest“. Here is the issue and the context. It is trivialisation. Consider the quote “local councilors are considering giving up politics because of credible physical threats against themselves and their families“, you see Geert Wilders did not do that. He has been clearly quoted as the person stating the need for non-violent non-compliance. Which is pretty much what Ghandi did. The people of the Netherlands are angry because life in the Netherlands is less and less affordable, housing, food, the prices keep on going up. Let’s not forget that the Dutch National population density is pretty close to that of London. Just in case you did not fathom that. The NATIONAL density of that nation approaches the density of the city of London. The politicians are playing with funds they do not have, budgets they cannot keep and now, they add more and more refugees. It is a commendable approach, but elected officials are still only elected by the people and the people are less and less agreeable with the decision made. Geert Wilders sees this and is playing those cards intensely. So as we see places like ‘The Post’ (http://tpo.nl/) are trivialising him and stating how he missed the boat. They are in equal denial on how much support the current political parties have lost at present. We see other statements by the Post on how PVV members are lowly educated and how they do not comprehend statistics. Well, that might not be incorrect, but the Post or better stated the people there have very likely read ‘How to lie with statistics’ and the people are realising how the numbers are no longer reliable.

The Dutch version of the Financial Times (at http://fd.nl/economie-politiek/1134584/pvv-naar-41-zetels-in-peiling-maurice-de-hond) gives them a current ranking of 41 seats, the fourth party ever to surpass 40 seats. Two of his contenders, those who usually are much higher than the PVV was are now on 18 and 19 seats (which might have been a typo by the Financial Times), implying that the PVV is now larger than the both of them. An achievement that even I never considered to be realistically possible. Now we get additional news from POW Ned (at http://www.powned.tv/nieuws/politiek/2016/02/syrische_oorlogsmisdadigers_mo.html), now I cannot vouch for the quality and reliability of that news, but consider that they stated 2 weeks ago that Syrian war criminals are currently in the Netherlands. They are not the only source stating this, some more renowned papers are giving similar statements, that those criminals, if applying for refugee status could not be removed from the Netherlands (source: Elsevier), if so, the Dutch people are likely to show a lot more anger soon enough, this is part of the danger that Dutch trivialisation is giving them, because the angry people (the numbers are growing daily) are siding with Geert Wilders, even though they are not in full agreement of his agenda and his voice, but the other parties have ignored the voice of the people for so long that they have had enough, which is part of the reason why many local politicians feel threatened. You see, they were there to fight for their constituents, not to dance to big business and the needs of a community that deserted them. If we accept that Humour is a moderator of compassion fatigue (see: Carmen C. Moran), we can get to the side that the higher the fatigue, the more direct the humour needs to be (the Adolf Silverman sketch, or was that Adolf Trump?), Kuhlman in 1988 gave us the premise that humour can be a bonding agent amongst colleagues as an emotional language, yet this is an environment of like-minded persons. That is not the case with the American people, and as such Humour is the trivialisation that no longer seems to work, it actually becomes the accelerant fuelling the American anger (to some extent). The same path is what the Dutch parties face with the PVV, like Janmaat, it would be great for them if Geert Wilders unqualified himself through his voice, but Geert Wilders is intelligent enough, not to be that extreme.

The growth of far right wing parties is what makes humour a dangerous tool to use, because the voters are either not getting it, or they no longer care who comes into power, as long as it is not the ‘current’ party. That makes for an unbalanced and dangerous escalation. As we see that Marine Le Pen is still the party to observe in the upcoming elections, the growth of the PVV and now the headway that German AfD (Alternativ fur Deutchland) is making, gives all the players several worries, more than ever before. Even as Italian Matteo Salvini with Lega Nord is unlikely to be the growing favourite, a wrong sense of humour in Italy could change that to some extent, yet I reckon not enough, which might make some people rejoice. What is a given is that the European map will soon starts to get a major overhaul, the extent of the overhaul will remain a mystery until the election dust settles, at which time an entirely new sense of humour will be required.

Will this affect the UK? That is actually an uncertainty, you see Brexit will make part of that determination, yet in equal measure how David Cameron now deals with Turkey is going to be centre in all this, especially the next elections. Nigel Farage has already spoken out against Turkey and in all honesty, I am not sure if he is wrong. The European players have been too lenient on Turkey and too lenient of the acts of Turkey as a whole, which implies that any soft catering towards Turkeys goals, especially as people start to realise that the Greek mess (regarding refugees) is largely DUE TO Turkey, any non-firm stance by Prime Minister David Cameron and The Right Honourable Philip Hammond regarding Turkey will hurt the Conservative numbers, of that I am utterly convinced. This poses an interesting place for UKIP, as they have not had such an advantage before. There is no clear way to tell how those dice will fall. Those elements will get an additional levy when we consider that Nigel Farage will be in the Netherlands 2 days (next month) before the referendum on the ‘EU’s treaty of association with Ukraine‘. By some this treaty is seen as a general feel on the EU as a whole, with one difference. Dutch News quoted Nigel Farage with “If you win in your referendum, my goodness me, that will help in Britain too“, which seems to be correct, the Ukrainian situation is an unstable one and Nigel can get votes no matter how that referendum goes. It is quite literal ‘damned if you do and damned if you do not’, these are easy points to pick up for Nigel and that impacts Geert Wilders too, although he would need a clear win here. The political map is shifting for a multitude of reasons, but let there be no mistake. The Greek economy started this, the power players desperate for their ‘Status Quo’ only added fuel to the fire and now they are for the most out of the game, making threats on how people are losing out and that story became stale and no one believes it any more (the voting population at large), the players relied on a dangerous sense of humour and they are about to lose in three nations no less.

Any opposition towards the far right needs to get serious and remain so, even at social events for some time to come.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as AfD, Alternativ fur Deutchland, Brexit, Carmen C. Moran, Conan, David Cameron, Donald Trump, EEC, FD, Financieel Dagblad, Geert Wilders, Greece, Hans Spekman, Janmaat, jean marie le pen, Kuhlman, Lega Nord, Marine Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, Nigel Farage, Philip Hammond, Pow Ned, PVV, Sarah Silverman, the Netherlands, the post, Turkey, Ukrainian treaty

March 9, 2016 · 21:36

Outrage

I am angry and I need your help!

This is not some weak story about a person who is lost, this is a story about a person who is determined. You see, we have all had enough of the press to some extend and now the time is right to give them a little medicine of their own. This all started as I saw this article ‘Matrix director Lilly Wachowski comes out as a transgender woman’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/09/matrix-director-lilly-wachowski-comes-out-as-a-transgender-woman). This seemed not a biggie at first, people make choices, they make them of their own accord and initially I shrugged and thought nothing of it. It is the subtitle that got my blood boiling, almost in a literal way. It stated “she went public after Britain’s Daily Mail ‘threatened public outing’“, now add to this the quote “she referred to the incident as a “threatened public outing against my will”, drawing comparisons to a similar incident involving the paper“. Now add the following parts: “Lucy Meadows, took her life after the Daily Mail published a column by Richard Littlejohn titled “He’s not only in the wrong body … he’s in the wrong job”. Michael Singleton, coroner for Blackburn, Hyndburn and Rossendale, criticised the “sensational and salacious” coverage which he blamed for her death” and “I just wanted – needed – some time to get my head right, to feel comfortable. But apparently I don’t get to decide this“. Well, let’s see if we can change that. I think that change is inevitable, especially if we all unite. You see, from my point of view when ‘pussies’ like that prey on those in vulnerable positions, whilst at the same time ignore transgressions by places like Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) and a few other players, I feel it has become important to change the game that some Journo’s have been playing.

So, let’s turn the tables, especially for those in the UK. Let’s open our offensive on people like Paul Dacre, the Journo’s at the Daily Mail and DMG Media with Viscount Rothermere (for now). Let’s put them in the spotlight!

First up – Viscount Rothermere

Rothermere believes the Daily Mail has been “built on solid ground” and a unique place in the market (Leveson testimony). In my view, as seen in the Guardian as stated by Lilly Wachowsky: “a journalist from Britain’s Daily Mail attempted to coerce her“, so Harold, that unique place, is that coercing people? Why not show some balls and try that on Ian Powell and Gaenor Bagley and coerce some information regarding PwC’s alleged action with Tesco? Perhaps they will give you the goods or that coercing Journo and you will end up with a real scoop, you know, the kind of real ground-breaking stuff towards possible criminal indictment and so on. Or is that a little bit too much of a stretch? Or perhaps there is the ever so slight chance that they will strike back in different ways? Now consider “Rothermere says: “built on a fundamental belief in a trust in journalism as opposed to technology. That’s what makes me proud“, yes, coercing laptops is a little hard, unless you hack them, which might be not all on the up and up legally seen. Finally we get the quote (from the Leveson part) “he is confident the Daily Mail has acted ethically. ‘And I am willing to stand up for us’“, which can be clearly thrown out of the window regarding Lilly Wachowsky. I wonder if we see shrugs, excuses (by stating: ‘It’s on the desk of Paul Dacre’) and other modes of a trans-neglecting mindset.

Second up – Paul Dacre

In December 2015 he proclaimed that he is all about Freedom of Information. He stated: “In the main, I suspect, dislike of FoI is driven by Whitehall’s belief that civil servants should be exempt from public scrutiny. This is in my view counter-productive, and perceived by the public simply as a compulsion to cover backsides“, so is that FoI under any option? Like coercion, blackmail, hacking? Whilst Paul was nice enough to have the quote: “an elitist political class protecting its own interests“, which is like the Journo calling the Politician selfish. That is not the idea we get when their profit is numbers of circulation and now includes Coercion, we can hope it is ONLY coercion (meaning the least offensive way) you get to feed your papers circulation with.

Now let’s get back to 2013 (at http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/03/miliband-daily-mail-inquiry_n_4038824.html), where we see: “The chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust has apologised to Ed Miliband after a reporter turned up uninvited at a family memorial service, but insisted the incident did not reflect the “culture and practices” of his papers“, which we can of course set as fictional when we see the ordeal of Lilly Wachowski just faced.

So until the Daily Mail starts their front-page with ‘alleged trans gender’s Harold Jonathan Harmsworth and Paul Dacre surprised their staff by growing some balls‘, they have now promised to actively dig into the involvement of PwC regarding Tesco. I very much doubt that it will ever happen, so until that moment comes, why don’t we make sure that the public at large gets to see every act from these Daily Mail journalists and their family members? I reckon that the public has a right to know, let’s see how many articles and photographs it takes for these revelations until we get:

Some fake apology
Threats that there is oppression against the freedom of the press
Demands from Whitehall against acts that endangers the independence of journalists.

In all this, it seems utterly unlikely that the Daily Mail will hold itself up to any scrutiny and any level of Ethics and/or Integrity.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as coroner for Blackburn, Daily Mail, Ed Miliband, Freedom of Information, Harold Jonathan Harmsworth, Hyndburn and Rossendale, Ian Powell and Gaenor Bagley, Leveson, Lilly Wachowsky, Lucy Meadows, Michael Singleton, Paul Dacre, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, PwC, Richard Littlejohn, the Guardian, Viscount Rothermere, Whitehall

March 6, 2016 · 20:47

Murder or simply killing it

Europe remains on our minds from several directions. The fact that the start of Brexit is 13 weeks away, so basically we have now entered the final quarter of a union that basically never was. A union that did little good for too many people and a setting that well over tripled the cost of infrastructure. All elements that are shifted around, as they aren’t clearly in budgets on reports and more important, a place of spending that is not being properly monitored or controlled.

We might all think that the EEC was so good for us, but was it really? When you are not in a high position in a large corporation, how did you really benefit? The last 15 years have been a mere exercise in exploitation by big business and short cut seekers. In all this after Brexit, the situation will remain. When goods are needed, people will buy them, which is why I oppose certain articles from the Guardian. One of them (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/28/brexit-would-affect-lives-of-millions-official-uk-report-says) states: ‘Brexit would negatively affect lives of millions, official UK report says‘, yet is this altogether true? let’s take a look at some of the quotes “The 10 years cited in the report includes the time it would take for Britain to exit the EU, to set up a new trade and related agreements as well as negotiate fresh trade deals with the US and other countries“, I regard this to be untrue. You see, everyone wants to sell, if the UK wants to buy, than those nations will oblige. More important, HM Revenue and Customs (at https://www.uktradeinfo.com) shows that UK imports is a lot higher than exports, which means that the UK is spending between 10 and 20 billion a year more than it receives in exports. Do you believe for one second that those nations will not find an immediate solution here? The damage of the UK getting its goods from a secondary source is too scary for THEIR economies, so you can bet the house on a solution being found almost immediately after the changeover comes. The second quote which is important here is “It says the only legal way to withdraw from the EU is through article 50 of the treaty of the European Union. But it argues that there is no precedent for this and that Britain would be unlikely to achieve a successful negotiation in the two-year time period it sets out“, here I also disagree. The paper Withdrawal and expulsion from the EU and EMU (at https://lawlordtobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ecblwp10.pdf) sheds light on this. On page 11 we see “One is that a right of unilateral withdrawal existed even in the absence of any explicit reference to it in the treaties, since sovereign States were, in any case, free to exercise their sovereign right¹⁸ to withdraw from their international commitments¹⁹”

The references there are:

18. ‘Sovereign power’ has been defined as ‘power not subject to limitation by higher or coordinate power held over some territory’ (MacCormick (1999), p. 127).

19. See Zeh, p. 209. This proposition is in line with the decision in Maastricht Urteil (BVerfGE 89, 155 of 12 October 1993) where the German Constitutional Court stated that the States are still ‘the Masters of the Treaties’ and can always decide to abandon the EU, revoking their acts of accession by a contrary unilateral denunciation; and more recently in its decision in Lisbon Urteil (BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08 of 30 June 2009) the German Constitutional Court found that the EU, as designed by the Lisbon Treaty, is not a federal state and that constitutional safeguards of national identity clearly exist under EU law.

Which gives us actually two issues. The first is that from the descriptions we see, that the EEC could be seen as a tontine. Here we see the following concept “Each investor pays a sum into the tontine. Each investor then receives annual dividends on the capital invested. As each investor dies, his or her share is reallocated among the surviving investors. This process continues until only one investor survives. Each subscriber receives only dividends; the capital is never paid back“, how is that any different? In addition, the EEC does not give dividend, it costs more and more money, in addition, the nations involved aren’t adding capital, they are adding debt and the last surviving nation ends up with all the debt. From that version Brexit makes perfect sense and getting out first seems to be an imperative need (the second one is further down the article for a reason).

There is one element the Guardian did get right “It also warns that the rights of 2 million British expats to work and access pensions and healthcare in EU countries may no longer be guaranteed“, I am on the fence here. I personally believe that if expats want to live their pensions away in Spain or Greece, than this should remain a possibility. I agree that there might be initial issues, yet those people might be permanent residents as such it should not affect them other than the pensions being a problem and that should not be the case. In addition, if the government does do a 180 on this part, it will be directly responsible to get affordable housing for those 2 million people. There is no way that this would work and it should not be an issue. A pensioner gets their money, it is deposited in whatever account is specified and that is pretty much the end of it in my book. Do you think that Spain, in its current economy would walk away from hundreds of thousands of paying Britons? I think not!

These are some of the oppositional issues I have with the article of Anushka Asthana, Heather Stewart and Nicholas Watt. It is however not the only article, because there are a few sides to the EEC at present, a pressing issue of refugees is an element and it is partially driving Brexit too. The article of a debatable level here is ‘EU acting like ‘human trafficker’ of refugees, says Austrian minister‘, the core of this is “Sebastian Kurz said that “in Greece refugees are being waved through to the heart of Europe. That is simply unacceptable in the long run. The European Union cannot act like a human trafficker.” Restoring the Dublin and Schengen agreements, he said, had to be a priority at the meeting between the EU leaders and Turkey“, as I stated before, it is like listening to someone who lost touch with reality (to some extent). In the first, the EU are not trafficking in refugees. Greece is completely overwhelmed by those refugees arriving via Turkish smugglers. Greece has no infrastructure to deal with the issue and the bulk of all the refugees do not want to stay in Greece, they want to go to a German or English speaking nation, in a pinch a French speaking nation would suffice. That is a clear fact as we have seen it for a long time, in addition, the part “had to be a priority at the meeting between the EU leaders and Turkey” here he seems completely intent of not calling the kettle black, because Turkey is massively responsible for the mess at his borders, as well as the Greek borders. Allowing free passes to smugglers and looking the other way as thousands of refugees are making for Greece. It seems that this short-sightedness is also fuel for both Brexit and Frexit. Now, I will immediately accept that Austria and Germany are getting swamped too. There is an issue, no one denies that, but taking Greece out of the solution was a really bad idea, especially as Turkey is part of the mess, not part of any solution. As the borders in Germany are back up, as borders close, we see another quote. When we read “Yet there will be little sympathy for Berlin from Hungary, Italy or Greece, which are bearing the brunt of the mass arrivals of people from Syria, Iraq, Eritrea and Afghanistan“, which is fair enough. Yet, as stated earlier: “This proposition is in line with the decision in Maastricht Urteil (BVerfGE 89, 155 of 12 October 1993) where the German Constitutional Court stated that the States are still ‘the Masters of the Treaties’ and can always decide to abandon the EU, revoking their acts of accession by a contrary unilateral denunciation“, the intersections of the two situations is found in the works of Juli Zeh.

This now reflects also on the second issue, the first I described earlier, the second issue I skipped until now. This all comes from an article titled ‘Union Membership: Accession, Suspension of membership rights and unilateral withdrawal. Some reflections‘ by Jean-Victor Louis, an honorary Professor from the Free University of Brussels. In his reflections on Page 11, we see: “The future will say if the prevision of unilateral withdrawal will be a “source of pressures and blackmailing against the general interest” or prove to be a useful way out of undesirable changes in the working and orientation of the European Union. Juli Zeh concludes her in-depth analyses of the right of withdrawal by quoting an Estonian member who expressed “hope that this clause will never be used” and indeed she is right. We would like to suggest that the Union should conceive and put in practice an accession policy for the future in order to avoid unilateral withdrawals“.

The interesting part is that at no time any consideration is given to the accountability of national needs and national acts. Consider the overspending of the budget by 12 trillion euro’s (total EEC debt including UK), or the fact that the bulk of the European nations remain incapable of keeping a budget. One could argue that not unlike a contract, the presence of unfair terms are not binding on consumers and the trader may not rely on them. Is the European Union any difference?

The last one is not really that sellable, but the premise is, in addition, should certain parties be investigated for neglecting ‘their’ national need? That question arises from the initial PDF mentioned. Here we see: “As one author has written, there are three main reasons why the treaties were silent on withdrawal: first, it was in order to avoid putting question marks to the Member States’ commitment to the achievement of their shared objectives; second, it was because providing for the possibility of withdrawal might have increased its likelihood; and third, because to provide for this possibility would entail the daunting task of spelling out the procedure and consequences of withdrawal“, this now implies that the creating parties set up an unbalanced situation and in addition the elected politicians at the time did not do their homework and created a dangerous situation to their national need. Am I the only one asking the right question here?

So will Brexit turn out to be murder, or will the British be killing it? Where will the economy go? These are questions that many sources are answering in their view, emphasising their need to be in-EEC, or out-EEC. I have my own view, but I do not have any useful answers. You see, there are issues on both sides, yet as I see it, the scales that are in favour of the UK seem to lean towards out-EEC at present. This view will be interfered with, especially by the USA, as it will topple a massive economic minefield which will blow up in all our faces, especially the value of the Dollar. Yet, the status for the UK would remain strongest if they leave first, especially if the Commonwealth unites with the UK in a strong economic bond. If we find a way to keep import low by utilising the Commonwealth bonds that Commonwealth nations have, the UK coffers would grow better, faster and higher. In the end, Brexit or not, a solution for the refugees must still be found, closing the borders to them completely is as unacceptable as it was for Austria to keep Greece out of the debate. How these parties will be resolved is a question that remains without answer as the involved parties have a hard time agreeing on the resolution, which is fair enough, there are no easy answers, as there is an equal concern that a solution is not forthcoming any day soon. For that Greece would have been needed to create locations, an option Austria decided to take it out of consideration, something that will haunt us for a little longer than we are all comfortable with.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Anushka Asthana, Austria, Brexit, Commonwealth, EEC, Eu, European Union, Expat, France, Free University of Brussels, Frexit, Germany, Greece, Heather Stewart, HM Revenue and Customs, Jean-Victor Louis, Juli Zeh, Maastricht Urteil, Nicholas Watt, refugees, Spain, the Guardian, Turkey

February 26, 2016 · 21:52

Within the Entitlement of Relevance

Very early this morning an article made it into the Guardian. The title ‘David Cameron boasts of ‘brilliant’ UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia‘, (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/david-cameron-brilliant-uk-arms-exports-saudi-arabia-bae), which is fair enough. The UK is one of those nations that actually has an arms export option. It is nowhere near the size of the US, but that is not the point here.

When we read: “on the day the European parliament voted for an arms embargo on the country over its bombardment of Yemen“, we should be asking: ‘and why do we care about that?‘, yet this is not the case. We see both “At almost the same time, the European parliament voted in favour of an EU-wide ban on arms being sold to Saudi Arabia in protest at its heavy aerial bombing of Yemen, which has been condemned by the UN” as well as “The vote does not force EU member states to comply but it increases pressure on national governments to re-examine their relationships with Riyadh“. Which is a joke of sizeable proportions (reasoning will follow). Finally we see: “The Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been extremely critical of Cameron’s relationship with Saudi Arabia because of its human rights record, prompting an angry response from Riyadh“, which could be seen as a humorous climax in labour less form.

We need to deal with the quotes so that it all makes sense to you, but there is one more element in that story. That we see from: “Oliver Sprague, Amnesty International UK’s arms controls director, said: “The ‘brilliant things’ that David Cameron says BAE sells include massive amounts of weaponry for the Saudi Arabia military, despite Saudi Arabia’s dreadful record in Yemen“. I needed to add this to all this, because there is the start.

You see, I am on the fence here. I will happily support Amnesty International, because for the most it is a force of good. When I see the title ‘UK’s arms controls director‘ I wonder if AI lost the plot a little. Let’s be clear here. It makes sense that AI has people on the payroll who understand weapons, understands mines, chemical ordnance. That makes perfect sense. AI is in need of knowledge on many levels and plenty of their work is in places where people tend to passionately not like each other (as in: with clubs, machetes and automatic weapons). Yet, when AI is wasting time on a valid business deal, we should ask a few additional questions. Now, we should quickly mention another side. At https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/amnesty-expert-barred-london-arms-fair, we see ‘Amnesty expert barred from London arms fair‘ as well as his quote “They’ve kept me out, but the question is: what has DSEi got to hide?” Let me answer that instead of the DSEi. You see, I could with my own expertise attend that event, and like him, I will equally hear “alas sir, you didn’t meet the criteria for registration“, even though there should be a few around in that field who know my skill levels in that regard. It is not skill or expertise, you see, it is about CLEARANCE LEVELS. These events are frequented by a massive who’s who of unregistered events, with a decent amount of government employees who need to talk shop, having non-cleared people on that fair tends to be a little unsettling for several reasons. In part because this world has its own rules, you obey those rules or you stop functioning in that world. There is every chance that I could accidently make the mistake whilst Oliver Sprague would intentionally do these things. Most of these people shy away from cameras (apart from those special social functions), they are there to talk shop!

You see, I have every respect for Amnesty International, they have done many good things in the past and will continue this in the future. For example stop torture makes perfect sense. There is also a questionable part from AI, it is nice to talk about the Human Rights Act, yet in the decades they have never succeeded in championing the need to add Spousal Abuse to article 3 of that HRA. Is spousal abuse not torture in its own rights? In that regard AI likes to be very visible, but in some way the big fights are never really fought (or better stated have not been fought for a long time). They have shown success stories every year, but landmark achievements have been absent for some time. Let’s get back to the initial story, but do not forget this part as it has bearing.

You see, the next part is slightly more entertaining. That tends to be the case whenever the honourable Jeremy Corbyn gets involved. Apart from the fashion comments we have seen in the last two days. The actual issue is his choice to get to the CND-rally, which is not a bad thing, but in light of timing, he decides to walk away from the national Labour campaign day, where he would be persuading voters to back Britain’s membership of the EU. This leaves to mind, is this a first inkling that even labour expects Brexit to become a reality? Whether that is true or not, this event has a direct bearing on the British population within this year, the CND rally has been going on for decades, so there would be another one next year. There is no other story beyond that. When you lead the labour party, it must be about the party, not about temporary ideology, because the CND is temporary at best and all ideological. I state that because there is no doubt that the UK would never instigate it, it would however respond if need be. Jeremy knows this (or he should not run the labour party). In all this I accept and understand that this is an option to rub elbows with people like SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, Plaid Cymru’s Leanne Wood and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party. Yes, those meetings make perfect sense, yet that means that none of them are really there for a CND rally. That is not an accusation, it is not wrong, but it leads to questions; questions that can slow down any election for a massive amount.

Two events all with issues of relevance, relevance from within those people from their point of view.

Now we take another gander, a gander towards the path of Saudi Arabia. Most people refuse to understand (read: accept) two elements. The first is that Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation, a nation founded in 1932 by the House of Saud. The most important part here is that this is a Muslim nation, it is a nation of laws, in their case it was the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia in 1924 when King Abdul-Aziz made Shura a foundation of his government in order to fulfil the divine order by applying Shariah (Islamic Jurisprudence) and Shura as parts of it. So, we have a clear given, a monarchy that lives by Muslim rule of law, Shariah law. We might not comprehend, understand it or even accept it. But in the Nation of Saudi Arabia it has forever been law. I still do not understand how people go about trying to enforce their rules upon others. You see, when I hear these ‘moralists’ speak on how Sharia Law is so ‘barbaric’, they in equal measure forget that their own governments abandoned them as markets collapsed twice since 2004, no decent part of the involved parties went to prison and absolutely no laws were properly instigated and enforced against greed and in that regard, the least said about flawed corporate tax laws the better. In light of all this consider another fact that applies to the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, the previous assembly had 70% of its members with a PhD, 49% got their degree in the US and 20% from a University in Europe. So this is a group highly educated. Initially, going back to the beginning, the council was entrusted with drafting the basic laws for the administration of the country. Which is interesting as the US started in a similar way, a nation of laws under god (their Christian version). When we see the Shura council, we see in Article one “and following His Messenger Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH) in consulting his Companions, and urging the (Muslim) Nation to engage in consultation. The Shura council shall be established to exercise the tasks entrusted to it, according to this Law and the Basic Law of Governance while adhering to Quran and the Path (Sunnah) of his Messenger (PBUH), maintaining brotherly ties and cooperating unto righteousness and piety“, so as others judge the actions of Saudi Arabia, ask yourself, in the last 5 years alone, how many instances from large corporations and government have we seen, where ‘maintaining brotherly ties and cooperating unto righteousness and piety‘ were never part of any consideration? You only have to look at your pension plan, healthcare or deficits to see that ‘brotherly‘ is nowhere to be found.

This too is relevant to the entirety of the situation when we return to the honourable Jeremy Corbyn. Several sources stated “Jeremy Corbyn has called on David Cameron to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia after a United Nations report found the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen had “conducted airstrikes targeting civilians”“, based on what evidence would be my first question (not stating the validity of the UN), apart from that, Corbyn has a direct responsibility, you see, the UK had coffers that need to be filled, the UK has product that can be sold. We have seen how UK Labour was willing to spend money they never had, leaving the UK in massive debt. The last thing he should do is call for a suspension. Let me explain that part.

This arms deal is not with some organisation like Hezbollah, it is a legitimate sovereign government of an established nation. The UK has every right to sell products to this nation.
Whenever the west gets directly involved in any Middle Eastern event, it becomes a massive mess, in all this after half a decade, the west has done next to nothing regarding Syria, Europe has to deal with massive waves of refugees and there is no end in sight. Amnesty International knows this. They also know that Sharia Law is another matter, it is not for them to judge; it is for them to accept that the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia has every right to keep their own set of laws.
Hezbollah and other players in Yemen are not part of an established government, they overthrew governments and the mess that followed has been ongoing ever since. In that light, there are too many question marks in too many places.

I believe that any Middle Eastern issue should be resolved by the Middle Eastern nations themselves. With escalation on the south border and firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia, they have every rights to protect themselves in any way they need to. That is also part of the equation. In that regard Islam 101 gives us two parts “Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors” as well as “Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers“. The next part is also from the Quran, but I am not sure whether this is Sharia: “The Quran sanctions violence to counter violence. If one studies history of Arab tribes before Islam and fierce fighting they indulged in one would be convinced that the philosophy of passive resistance would not have worked in that environment“. This is the kicker, we see that passive resistance was not a solution, because of the mess that Arab spring left the Middle East. In that Saudi Arabia has a right to counter its attacks, which means that we do not get to say too much on how a sovereign state defends itself. In addition, with the amount of ‘additional’ groups in Yemen, can we be certain who is who there?

But do not fear, Smith is here!

You see, I am very willing to join BAE and become ‘the’ sales person there (I know a person who would join me, so a team of 2 could be achieved), I will take a decent sales income and of course the 3.75% bonus on surplus sales and 3.25% bonus on sales targets reached. I reckon that I can sell the Eurofighter Typhoon military planes, with consultancy, training and guidance. In addition, I will be happy to provide for ammunition and ordnance. As stated, we Commonwealth nations need to stick together and I am happy to aid in the support and consultancy of those jets.

This now gets us to the final part ‘an arms embargo on the country over its bombardment of Yemen‘. What data is there? What evidence is there? We know for a fact that Hezbollah is there, that the Iranians are all over this, which is interesting as they are supporting the party overthrowing the legitimate government. So is there more? Is this perhaps an organised annexing of Yemen for Iran? The elements that gives value to that are indeed in play, whether this is a factual interpretation is not clear, too much data is not available to me, as well as too much time has passed from the start of all this.

And the final part in all this is “The vote does not force EU member states to comply“, which makes the EU a lame duck organisation. All that time and all these events for something that holds no real value. Now let’s take the headcount for a second. Oliver Sprague, a civilian with no political power, a person who leads by instigating those who have power and only in events where it is beneficial to those people could something possibly happen (not in this case though). Jeremy Corbyn, a political headpiece, but not one that is currently in office, he is merely in opposition and as such he is about visibility and branding himself (politically plugging is also a term that applies in this case). These two non-deciders are opposing a nation that needs commerce that needs to export as many of their products as possible.

In the defence of the two non-deciders I must add, from our values, we might have issues and it is nice that the UN is also about values, yet in all this, apart from condemnation there has been very little against terrorist elements. Of all the condemnations we have seen since Syria has a little issue in 2011, how much actions have been taken and for how many millions of Syrians has it been too late? Too many speakers for inactions, too little actions on economy and actual actions on the HRA (like the little addendum to article three I mentioned earlier).

So within the title of relevance seems to apply to too many people, it includes me as well, for the mere reason that my blog has no effect on the actions of the UK Foreign Office. It is just my view on the matter, like it was the view of Oliver Sprague, Jeremy Corbyn and the EU parliament. We are all simply non-deciders. The deciders are the currently elected UK government headed by David Cameron as well as the Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, under King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. They both get to look at the ‘toothless’ response from the EU parliament, who might be entering their final sitting soon enough.

Our voices might sound nice, our words might read nice, but neither bring food to the table, which is the concern of the Conservative Party, one that they are actually addressing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as Amnesty International, amnesty.org.uk, BAE, BAE Systems, Brexit, Caroline Lucas, CND, Commonwealth, Conservative party, Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, David Cameron, DSEi, Green Party, House of Saud, HRA, Human Rights Act, Jeremy Corbyn, King Abdul-Aziz, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Leanne Wood, Nicola Sturgeon, Oliver Sprague, Quran, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Shura, the Guardian, Yemen

February 25, 2016 · 20:26

Family of my enemy

There are all these expressions, like for example: ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend‘. In this day and age, in the one place, the one moment when Marine Le Pen has a growing chance of becoming President of France, her father, for whatever reason is now trying to thwart her chances. This is the one clear evidence that ‘Family of my enemy is my friend‘. The quote “threatened his daughter and sent her an ultimatum, to ensure the “unity of her movement and of the national movement“, must make François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy howl with laughter. Euro Disney could not come up with this plot! In addition, the quote “We must not lose part of our political capital in the hope to conquer others. You have to be yourself”, which reads like: ‘be the ultimate extremist of yourself, as outspoken as possible‘. The reality is that some will listen to the very old man, giving rise to internal opposition towards Front National. I still believe that an actual Brexit will give a massive sway towards Marine Le Pen. There are two factors that will change it. The first one is either Hollande or Sarkozy to get on the Frexit horse, this would be the most powerful deflator for Front National and here is the kicker. If Hollande does this before the Brexit vote they will actually expedite that what neither wants. We have seen in the previous round that they will combine powers just to prevent Marine Le Pen from winning, which could be seen as betraying ones constituency on one side and in my book there is no other side. The entire approach reeks towards the fact that Sarkozy and Hollande will do anything to stay in the Euro and keep Front National out of Élysée Palace. Is that truly representing ones constituency? We can argue for either side. Yet it could all be moot if Mademoiselle’s Le Pen’s daddy goes extreme. Her victory could turn instantly from definite into possibly, maybe. This is not a solution for her side, which the other players definitely love. So the problem for her side is now starting to grow. Her chances are growing fast, but only if she can get a handle on daddy dearest. For her opposition this is great, should their dreams come true, if they escape defeat by Le Pen, the speculation would become whether the gilded tombstone will read ‘Jean-Marie Le Pen, deceased, as is Front National, I killed my own party and we never got to govern because I would not trust my children‘, which could end up becoming a tourist attraction, which is also good for France.

Yet, the issue does not stop in France, recently we have seen issues rise in both the Netherlands and Italy. First the Netherlands. For this I will use the Irish times as a source, so you won’t need to learn the complications of Google Translate. For example ‘schijt lijster’ does not mean ‘shit thrush’, but ‘coward’. So let’s take a look at a decent version of reporting, where (at http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/02/geert-wilders-is-a-threat-to-democracy-says-labour-chairman/), we saw earlier this month “Wilders told a gathering of far right parties in Milan 10 days ago: ‘If I am the biggest and the other politicians won’t work with me, then the people will not accept that. Then there will be a revolt. We won’t let that happen“, which is a fair enough statement to make. The statement “Wilders has ‘let the genie out of the bottle’ with his calls for ‘resistance’ to the establishment of refugee centres and warnings that his supporters will ‘revolt’ if the PVV is not part of the next government, Spekman said” is in that context not correct, what Geert Wilders has stated that if he becomes the biggest (which is statistical likelihood at present) the other parties would need to work with him. This is at the core of the Dutch issue. In the past, not entirely unjustified did parties turn their back and all support away from the PVV, which in light of Dutch liberalism, if THEY think it is too extreme, there should be an issue. What becomes partially the issue is “The threats being made against local politicians are an attack on democratic decision-forming, the Labour party chairman said. Wilders, Spekman said, should take back his words. ‘The genie has to be put back in the bottle and Wilders has a role in doing that.’“, this is not correct. You see, for a long time there has been a growing aversion against more refugees. The Netherlands, pretty much the smallest nation in Europe is 7^th on the GDP list, largely through transport and processing services. It has a comparable GDP with Turkey but is only 5% in size. It has a population size that is only 3 million less than Romania, yet 16% it’s size. So a population pressure that is 5 times higher. In addition, the local population have for a long time made the argument that the value of houses would decrease when a refugee centre would be added in near proximity. However, that last fact has never been proven with factual data, partially as the Dutch house market has had many fluctuations.

In light given another part is also ignored. When we see “threats being made against local politicians are an attack on democratic decision-forming“, there is a clear side that is ignored. The fact that the population is more and more agitated by these events is also a clear sign that political parties are about international visibility. The voter has been ignored too many times, this is exactly why the PVV had grown too much. Local politicians proclaiming to be international players all in the interest of ‘self’ is why this shift is happening. In addition, to some extent I still believe that a coalition government should be seen as the most corrupt form of democracy (not just a personal view). We see on how politicians will advocate ‘a little water added to the wine‘, this has been happening in the Netherlands since the 80’s, which means the politicians all get what they need, but the population gets a mix, no longer having the ability to differentiate water from wine. What they are left with won’t kill them, but it should be regarded as undrinkable. The people at large have had enough. The fact that the PVV is now regarded in the Netherlands as the largest party is a blemish on the political shield. The true political titans that the Netherlands had like Joop den Uyl, Hans Wiegel, Dries van Agt and Hans van Mierlo. These titans were true politicians, when den Uyl fought van Agt on the political battlefield it was a sight to behold, there was a true fight for their constituents. I believe that this fight is gone, as a majority is no longer an option it became about compromise and from the 90’s onwards there was too much compromise where parties gave in to big business and certain scandals (there will always be scandals in every nation) were almost a cornerstone of political office.

It is not really that much of a wonder that Geert Wilders grew to the extent he has. This now reflects back to France. As France is now making more and more compromises (Team Hollande/Sarkozy), we see a local population that has had enough. A united Europe has brought them too little, or nothing at all. In that regard many European nations are now more and more pushing the ‘nationalism’ button, after too much hardship the people are accepting that story, even though in the back of their mind they know it will not bring any ease to their hardship. After a harsh decade where large corporations gave millions to their top dozen, these people will now try ‘anything else’. It is the ‘else’ part that is bringing the problems known as Brexit and Frexit.

So in countering the statement by the Dutch Chairman of the Labour party, I would state “Mr Spekman, your party lost close to 50% of its power, because of self-serving bias. The pension plan is perhaps the most visible one. A long fight that had no option of getting won. Instead of fighting a useless battle, accepting the reality of a sliding age of retirement and presenting the demand for reinforcements and growth of the total pensions, giving way to a more secure future would have been the real solution. Your party never sold it correctly and did not terms of preparations which would have made all the difference. You lost the faith of your constituents!” which would have been my response to that disaster. In that light people are now listening to someone else, it is not up to me to decide whether he is the wrong person.

In light of that, as he stated in a Dutch Newspaper “Het optreden van Geert Wilders brengt democratie en rechtsstaat in gevaar“, “The acts of Geert pose a threat to democracy and the rule of law“, is that truly the case? If he is a threat to the rule of law, he would be breaking the law and he can be prosecuted, he cannot be a threat to democracy, in that light, you and your posse (your coalition partners) are that threat. The threat is there because the people have been ignored for too long and they (well over 25% have had enough), in that light, how often will a Dutch politician state ‘it is a complex situation‘ to avoid giving a clear answer? How many of the clear answers given turned out to be ‘half-truths’ or ‘incomplete answers’? In that light, who is the threat to democracy? In that light, Mr Spekman should realise (fast) that should the PVV win, he has no option, but to either find a way to work or to create a minority coalition. Should that happen, than perhaps Mr Spekman might want to try to remember what happened on August 20^th 1672 and especially WHY it happened.

Even as the mood in France is not that grim, the issues are now quickly evolving. The investigation into the Nicolas Sarkozy 2012 election charges, which according to the French population is not a good thing. According to the poll 77% regard Mr Sarkozy ‘a handicap’ to his party’s ambitions, within his party, it is Alain Juppe who has 55% of the votes within the party (at http://www.connexionfrance.com/france-politics-les-republicains-nicolas-sarkozy-president-francois-hollande-alain-juppe-survey-17738-view-article.html), in that light, as Sarkozy designed a coalition with Francois Hollande, who is dealing with disastrously low ratings. So as the two French parties are in turmoil, there is a clear path for Front National to get national gains beyond the two areas where they had an advantage. An option for Marine Le Pen that is now in danger as her daddy seems to have a failing level of logic and even less faith in his youthful young daughter.

Even in this light, there is still an issue with Greece, as their economy created the dangers of Brexit and Frexit in the first place. However, in this case it is NOT Greece that has the blame here. In this case, the refugee issues that are fuelling election, we see a Greece that is in the middle of a scenario they did NOT create. In that light we need to look at the issue of Austrian short-sightedness. Greece is the first port of call, not by choice, by mere geography. Austria seems to forget that Turkey (stupid is as stupid does) is doing what it can to get the people away from their turf into the next one (Greece). So the quote “Sebastian Kurz says that Greece has “clearly expressed no interest in reducing the (migrant) influx and in contrast wants to continue waving them through” ” is already a first issue, because the refugees DO NOT want to be in Greece, they want the juicy places like Germany and the UK. Which means that they will end up getting through Austria. In my view, how was Sebastian Kurz elected for office as he has such a failing view of geography and logic? Greece should have been the guest of honour at that event!

You see, people (read: refugees) need to be processed, they need to be identified and assessed on optional issues of security. That system would bring jobs and possible economic support to Greece, whilst the EEC gets the data it desperately needs. So as we see (at http://www.ekathimerini.com/206291/article/ekathimerini/news/austria-defends-excluding-greece-from-migrant-conference), so as we look at the quote “the conference is set up in a “regular format” that does not include Athens“, to which I reply: “such a conference requires intelligence and clear thinking, so Minister Kurz, will you therefor be equally absent?”

That for the mere reason that the intelligence required would be the data your neighbours desperately needs (which includes Germany and Italy). I wonder if that conference will lead to anything truly productive, or will it just be good food, hookers and a few days away from their offices? I’ll let you readers contemplate that part.

All these events are interconnected, and it is not even the complete story as Italy is missing in all this, but that is for another day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alain Juppe, Austria, Élysée Palace, Brexit, Dries van Agt, EEC, Ekathimerini, François Hollande, France, Frexit, Geert Wilders, Greece, Hans van Mierlo, Hans Wiegel, Hollande, jean marie le pen, Joop den Uyl, Marine Le Pen, Nicolas Sarkozy, PVDA, PVV, refugees, Romania, Sarkozy, Sebastian Kurz, Spekman, the Netherlands, Turkey

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives