Category Archives: Law

September 24, 2015 · 22:06

Imperitos idiot

This is a view I have had for a while, it is a view that I have advocated on more than one situation, yet business remains silent, deaf and as they hide in ignorance they are limiting the options they have, in the future and in an acted decimation of one’s own future. The information in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy) shows a title ‘Facebook case may force European firms to change data storage practices‘ that questions certain elements. The quote “a court accused America’s intelligence services of conducting “mass, indiscriminate surveillance”” in the first paragraph is the act of alerting, but is that all?

The Case C‑362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner is the calling entity here. A request for a preliminary ruling.

Let’s take a look at the elements. We see at [25] Mr Schrems lodged a complaint with the Commissioner on 25 June 2013, claiming, in essence, that the law and practices of the United States offer no real protection of the data kept in the United States against State surveillance. That was said to follow from the revelations made by Edward Snowden from May 2013 concerning the activities of the United States intelligence services, in particular those of the National Security Agency (‘the NSA’).

[35] Nevertheless, according to the High Court, the revelations made by Edward Snowden demonstrated a significant over-reach on the part of the NSA and other similar agencies. While the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (‘the FISC’), which operates under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, (18) exercises supervisory jurisdiction, proceedings before that court take place in secret and are ex parte. In addition, apart from the fact that decisions relating to access to personal data are taken on the basis of United States law, citizens of the Union have no effective right to be heard on the question of the surveillance and interception of their data.

This all goes back to ‘the revelations made by Edward Snowden‘. I have forever had issues with the ‘revelations’, too many holes, too many issues that from an IT perspective are a given no no. In addition, it assumes a level of ‘openness’ within the alphabet group that does not exist. Such openness has never existed, yet the press and many others have been very willing to blindly accept the events of Edwards Snowden, yet the data was never made bare, the data is filtered and was largely ‘stamped’ as complex, as too dangerous. Yet proper analyses of the data was never made by any person that could be regarded as trustworthy. For now, to underline what comes, I will give you this quote “An intelligence operation is the process by which governments, military groups, businesses, and other organizations systematically collect and evaluate information for the purpose of discovering the capabilities and intentions of their rivals. With such information, or intelligence, an organization can both protect itself from its adversaries and exploit its adversaries’ weaknesses“, the source is not important right now, the impact will be discussed, yet before I do this I want to continue the other elements I started.

Now consider [224] where we see “In addition, the Commission expressly acknowledged at the hearing that, under Decision 2000/520, as currently applied, there is no guarantee that the right of citizens of the Union to protection of their data will be ensured. However, in the Commission’s submission, that finding is not such as to render that decision invalid. While the Commission agrees with the statement that it must act when faced with new circumstances, it maintains that it has taken appropriate and proportionate measures by entering into negotiations with the United States in order to reform the safe harbour scheme“.

Now consider the following thought by transforming the quote: ‘there is no guarantee that the right of citizens of the Union to protection of their data will be ensured‘ into ‘it will be certain that the right of citizens of the Union to protection of their data will be unsuccessful‘. The issue is that moving data will open up a massive amount of dangers, data instabilities and data security hazards. Too many players within the EEC and other places all want their fingers on the data so that they can get a foothold of power. It is THAT simple in my opinion!

All these nations wanting access to data, setting up corporations, all trying to make a quick buck whilst during political manipulating, the security of our data will be available to anyone offering 39 pieces of silver. Before you start listening to people with nice PowerPoint presentations and long winded explanations with considerable non liability asterisks on how this is so not possible consider the following events (at http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/). Ashley Maddison might be the most sensual one, but also the most embarrassing. In that same light we can see 145 million records of EBay, Sony, Heartland with 130 million and that list goes on for a long time. So the last thing I want to see is our data in the hands of some ‘seemingly’ ignorant individual, whilst completely unexpectedly and totally against ‘protocol’ the data will make it into the hands of third parties. Now I go back to that other quote, which I will paraphrase: “An intelligence operation is the process by which businesses systematically collect and evaluate information for the purpose of discovering the capabilities and intentions of their rivals and exploit the weakness of its adversaries“. This is what I foresee. This is why the crying over the NSA, whilst handing over health data to parties too unprepared to properly protect that data is more than just a big farce. Now we need to look at two sources. The first is the Guardian on the 28th February 2014 (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/28/nhs-data-will-not-be-sold-insurance-companies-jeremy-hunt), which gives us “Health secretary to provide assurance that confidential information will not be used for commercial insurance“, now Wired three days before that reported (at http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/25/insurance-companies-buy-medical-records) “Details relating to hospital admissions from 1989 to 2010 were given (for an extraction fee) to the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. The 13 years of data covering 47 million patients were given to the professional body to help them ‘improve accuracy in pricing’ of insurance“, yet all insurance is commercial, so as data goes, it is out there and too many players want a slice of that pie. Forcing more personal data into any open direction is beyond dangerous. That part can be constructed from http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-health-care-insurers-seek-big-premium-increases-1433206078. “Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois is looking to raise rates by averages of 29% or more. In Pennsylvania, Highmark Health Insurance Co. is asking for 30%, according to proposals submitted by insurers for the year ahead. Around the country, some of the main market leaders are looking for double digit increases“. What do you think in all honesty will happen when they get the option to make healthcare unaffordable to all or unaffordable to some. Data will become the compromise and that danger is a lot larger when it is in the hands of ‘other’ third parties whilst the law is unable to deal with the issues at hand. The US has some strict rules in place that barring national security cannot be broken. Now we see a push towards fields where these levels of security do not stringently exist. What do you expect will happen? And healthcare is not the biggest slice of it all, just the most visible one.

In all this there are issues on both sides, yet at the core the pushed fear for governmental access is a fake and an illusionary one and it is shouted the loudest by people who have a little too much to hide. Hiding for the sake of their ego, their acts and/or the need for continue or renewed satisfaction of greed. Yes, I agree that my view is polarised to some extent, I agree that my view has flaws, but I approach it from a clinical side, whilst the others are all hiding through the shouting and claims set behind the emotions, the push to fear.

In all this I have yet to see the cold light of evidence that the alphabet group is disserving the people. The link to movies and conspiracy theories, nearly all of those claimants with their own agenda, sometimes badly hidden. Yet, in that light, is my view not too conspiracy theory set? I ask that of myself too, because without that consideration it is just a viewpoint. It will remain a viewpoint no matter what, yet consider that when you seek ‘NSA transgressions’ you find very little acceptable news events, with this I mean events that are of a decent level of report. When we look at data transgressions from other parties, that list is growing at an almost exponential rate and the size of the transgressions seems to be increasing, shifting data all over the place is not my first idea of safety.

Is it your choice?

When you decide and it goes wrong, you only have yourself to blame and as I see it, you lose all rights to complain when (not if) it goes wrong.

The next iteration of our lifestyles that what happens over the next 2 generations will all be about data and who has control over it and who gets access to it, which is not freedom.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Blue Cross of Illinois, Blue Shield of Illinois, EBay, Edward Snowden, EEC, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Heartland, Highmark Health Insurance Co, Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, Jeremy Hunt, Maximillian Schrems, Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, NSA, Sony, the Guardian, Wall Street Journal, Wired

September 22, 2015 · 22:11

In Greed we trust

In greed we trust, all others are expected to die! That is the basic setting which is now ruling the internet and it all started when the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals AG bought the rights to generic drug Daraprim and he subsequently raised the price by 5500%. This now creates two parts. They are:

How is this legal?
How to prevent such dangerous situations?

The initial part is not found. You see, when we look at the definition of Financial Exploitation, we get: “Financial exploitation occurs when a person misuses or takes the assets of a vulnerable adult for his/her own personal benefit. This frequently occurs without the explicit knowledge or consent of a senior or disabled adult, depriving him/her of vital financial resources for his/her personal needs” (source: National Adult Protective Services Association (NAPSA)). Most forms of protection against exploitation is against what people own. One of the most famous cases in Australia is Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14. Yet, the law regarding exploitation of something that is not owned is not clear, in certain places we see that in the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal (GaBI Journal). 2012;1(3-4):146-9. The title of the PPRI conference reports gives us this with ‘The potential of generics policies: more room for exploitation’. The tactic is quite sound, if the price of normal medication cannot be lowered, than raising the price of generics is a sound strategy from the view of the greedy. The paper also gives us “Mr Richard Bergstrom, President of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations stated that ‘once patents expire, prices should fall to a low, but sustainable, level’. In this panel discussion but also throughout the conference there appeared to be a common understanding that generics competition works well”. This was a view stated almost 3 years ago, which is true. However, the solutions that are addressed to a 2% or even 1% market does not seem to have too many alternatives, this is where the solutions like Daraprim and Cycloserine seem to come into play. The older small solutions that have no equal because the need is too small, now a massive option for larger profits.

When we look at Bloomberg on August 6^th, we get: “Allergan Plc’s Actavis unit got a subpoena from the U.S. Justice Department seeking information on the marketing and prices of its generic drugs, becoming the biggest company yet to draw scrutiny in the government’s widening antitrust probe of the industry. The June 25 subpoena also sought information about communications with competitors regarding the products, Allergan said Thursday in a filing. While the company didn’t supply further information and didn’t specify the competitors, rivals including Lannett Co., Endo International Plc, Par Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc. and Impax Laboratories Inc. have made similar disclosures in the past several months“, as well as “Some 10 percent of generic drugs doubled in price between July 2013 and June 2014, and half of all generic drugs rose in price, according to an analysis earlier this year of Centres for Medicare and Medicaid data cited by Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who’s running for president, and Representative Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland”

So as we see these events, why did Martin Shkreli make this move? An entrepreneur of his achievements does not play around. What is his game?

The ‘defence’ we see from the other side is “Shkreli said: “We need to turn a profit on the drug.” He defended the decision by telling Bloomberg News that newer versions of the drug needed to be developed and his was the first company “to really focus on this product” for decades and that such research was extremely expensive“. This goes against the statement he later makes, which was “He also promised that: “If you cannot afford the drug we will give it away for free.” Shkreli also said the drug was currently under priced” (source: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/21/entrepreneur-defends-raise-price-daraprim-drug).

Now we have an issue with all this. Is this about the medication, or is this a first step to bleed dry health systems?

For this we must show one additional quote. It is “Shkreli’s start-up company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, acquired Daraprim in August. The drug was first developed in the 1940s and is used to treat toxoplasmosis, an infection that is not common but is particularly dangerous and can be fatal“. The question in my mind is how this existing drug is any form of treatment against the complications of AIDS? A drug that is over 60 years old, which is suddenly the foundation towards a cure? What are we not seeing? Well, that part is shown by CNBC (at http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/21/drug-prices-big-price-increase-for-daraprim-rescinded.html). Here we see that this is the second act. The first one was “Cycloserine was acquired last month by Rodelis Therapeutics, which promptly raised the price to $10,800 for 30 capsules, from $500. But the company agreed to return the drug to its former owner, a non-profit organization affiliated with Purdue University, the organization said on Monday“, after which the price ‘stabilised’ at twice the original price. So is this about a changing approach to the increase of generic medication by 100%-300% in the end? In addition, the other CNBC quote is “However, outrage over a gigantic price increase for another drug spread into the political sphere on Monday, causing biotechnology stocks to fall broadly as investors worried about possible government action to control pharmaceutical prices. The Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell more than 4 percent“, now this is all starting to make sense. A hedge funds manager playing the market and playing the waves of market exploitation. This is not unheard of, more important, for the most, we could argue that no illegal acts were undertaken. The Guardian stated “It is not uncommon for companies to use inventive interpretations of government regulations and loopholes in the law to corner the market for certain drugs, especially ones that were developed a long time ago and have only a limited market“, which is true, but when we considered the additional event that the Guardian ignored, give us cause for concern. I am not stating that the Guardian is trying to misinform its readers, their conclusion on one case is sound. Yet, when we see the addition that came from CNBC regarding Rodelis Therapeutics, we see another side. Here we see a side of market exploitation and Market manipulation, as far as I can tell at present in a very legal way. That we see from “Mr. Hasler said the new price was needed to stem losses”. Really? So is this about feigned losses, or is this one of many steps where drugs that treat smaller populations to grow 100%-300% in price to assure a market niche that most NHS systems (US, EEC and Commonwealth nations) are unable to fight. In this way on an international level the respected NHS versions will be placed under additional pressure. As I see it, Martin Shkreli has started Turing Pharmaceuticals AG to dig into this very profitable branch. In addition, for something this expensive, how come those rights transferred for only 55 million?

It seems to me that parts in all this remains unstated. Why?

Now in this part I am not having a go at journalists as in the past. For one, this is an evolving story, in the second part there are a few sides to all this. For one, I am speculating in what the game is here (speculating is not now, nor should it ever be regarded as factual). In addition there are sides that have not played yet. One of these sides is the law. As I personally see it, certain entrepreneurs, wealthy or not are now trying to corner the 2% treatment solutions, perhaps even the one percent group. Consider how this affects the UK. Let’s use the UK statistics. When we consider 240 million patients a year. If 2.4 million people require a drug and if that price suddenly goes up from $500 to $1000 (the Cycloserine example). This is only in the UK. Which gives them an additional 1.2 billion and this is only ONE nation, now consider the effect on the EEC as well as the US and the other Commonwealth nations, now the money becomes really handsome. Even at 0.1% it is a massive influx of money and for now all very legal. I have full faith that the law will be adjusted, yet we will see that it will be adjusted too late and some of these fast moving rascals will have made a massive additional amount of money, which is not an illegal act by the way.

This whilst I am still slaving over my issues of Infringement. That and a massive student loan will not propel me whilst some dubious hedge funds individual walks away with billions. A clever mind is half the battle!

So as this event escalates, the UK will have a new problem, because as is, the prospect stated ‘Planned NHS expenditure for 2015/16 is £116.574bn‘ is possible off by no less than 10%, the generic pharma side is only one side. I wonder what happens when these ‘entrepreneurs’ acquire the service contracts of hospitals at large, what happens when the MRI contracts are sold off to third parties? What happens when those prices go up? This is a path that Stadium Group CEO Charlie Peppiatt seems to be walking towards in a very successful way. As one third of the planet goes into ‘one foot in the grave mode’ that population will require a massive amount of support in medical terms (until they move towards their respective casket or urn). There is one side that is an issue for the other players. As I see it Martin Shkreli might be the most visible one but as I see it not the brightest (massively richer than me though), in one bash he has given visibility to a move that many wanted to keep under wraps, because out of sight, out of mind and that would have resulted in profits (loads of it). The visibility forced on the eyes of many might now result in NHS safety valves that could stop the forced squandering of funds. I wonder if my view is correct and more important will proper steps be taken sooner rather than later.

I’ll let you decide.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as Allergan, bloomberg, Charlie Peppiatt, CNBC, Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio, Commonwealth, Cycloserine, Daraprim, EEC, Endo International Plc, Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal, Impax Laboratories Inc, Martin Shkreli, NAPSA, Nasdaq Biotechnology Index, National Adult Protective Services Association, NHS, Par Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc, President of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, Purdue University, Representative Elijah Cummings, Richard Bergstrom, Rodelis Therapeutics, Senator Bernie Sanders, Stadium Group, the Guardian, Turing Pharmaceuticals, US

September 20, 2015 · 12:57

The Game of Patent Law

I am in a very weird place. I must admit that I have not been in the brightest of spots. I am struggling with this semester’s subject. Even now, I am still studying too. I stopped writing on notes and going over lectures because I needed a small break and because my mind has been telling me stuff I did not even realise.

You see, this all started on two parts. The first was ‘Person Skilled in the Art’. I looked at it from many sides, but I forgot, no, lets state, I did not completely comprehend the legal part in all this. You see, Wiki tells us ‘If it would have been obvious for this fictional person to come up with the invention while starting from the prior art, then the particular invention is considered not patentable’, which might not be the most academic view, but when we consider the more ‘academic’ part we get “In these fields the persons skilled in the art are not just skilled artisans. They are often trained engineers and scientists, who are well versed in the periodical literature of their subjects“. This we get from the case Sunbeam Corporation v. Morphy-Richards (Australia) Pty Ltd [1961] HCA 39; (1961) 35 ALJR 212. Here Justice Windeyer referred to this in [218] “scientific inventions, intricate mechanical arrangements, chemical processes, electrical and electronic devices and so forth”

You see, part of this is my issue (truly an issue I have). It comes in two parts. The first one is a memory from my early secondary education. We once had a discussion on Art versus conceptual art. It never made sense to me because I regarded both pieces as art. In some view we see that conceptual art focusses on the involved idea in the work takes precedence over traditional forms and material concerns. But is that true for some? Art is art no matter how you slice it. This has been in the back of my mind for a few days. At work in the last week I would listen to the soundtrack of Mass Effect whilst working on parts I was working on. I thought I was just trying to listen to music. No! My mind was kicking into high gear trying to make me see something and after this weekend, after 16 hours of re-listening to lectures and retrying to do what I could not do before, at roughly 10:18 it hit me! It was all connected, I suddenly got the gist in a scary way (because I get a first glimpse on how to solve it).

I need to get back to that ‘skilled person‘ because that is actually at the centre and it all links back to mass effect. In my view Mass Effect is one of the most brilliant pieces of work, possibly ever! The story is captivating, the graphics are amazing and the entire project is out there and I mean out there on the far horizon. Most gaming (me inclusive) always seek to look to the next challenge, the next big game. We almost forget the great games that got us here. Yet, Mass Effect always remains. My Google+ profile still has the launch party photo. In all this, the game was a breed apart.

So, how does this relate to the law?

This is part of the issue I have, especially with Justice Windeyer stating “In these fields the persons skilled in the art are not just skilled artisans. They are often trained engineers“. This has been my issue for a long time. You see almost two years ago, I wrote the concept for Elder Scrolls 6 (Restoration) and send it to Bethesda for their consideration. Not just more or an addition, no an entire new approach. In that same way I have bene able to reengineer in my mind every game I ever played. Now I am not a programmer, so making it is another issue, but my mind can see the game. Improve upon it, mould it into more, within my mind. The ability to see past the game, into the engine, the design and the story has been forever with me. Which was also the part that is stopping me. It is in essence the issue I have had with Ubisoft and Yves Guillemot regarding the dwindling of the Assassins Creed franchise. That is not even addressing the issues (read glitches and bugs) AC Unity and Far Cry 4 has been subjected to. AC Syndicate is now less than 4 weeks away and its predecessor have given a massive blow to the franchise. I saw some of these issues for a long time. Many things have been in there for 5 generations of the Creed, so if I can spot them, why can they not do so (or fix them before release for that matter)?

You see, here we get the PSA, here I get the block that Justice Windeyer (et al) bestowed upon me.

This is exactly where my problem is and yes, it is just me. I am not blaming anyone else. I never truly understood ‘Person Skilled in the art‘ (yes, it took me a while to figure that out), which means the rest became up for grabs. Yes, I comprehend the definition and I understand the premise, but when you can reengineer whatever you see, you (in this case me) tend to miss the point.

Now, in that continuation, how can one dissect “a pair of spaced apart slots in the first end portion each slot extending from an edge of the first end portion to half way across the first end portion; the slots being parallel to each other so that they and their projections define a pair of parallel axes extending across the first end portion, along the sides of the stem and across the second end portion” In case you were wondering, this is part of the description for an applied sheet of metal (I never knew my mind could project so many question marks).

Here I see myself like in Abbott Laboratories v Corbridge Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 810. At [56] we see “I regard Professor Guilbault as quite unlike any person in Australia for the purposes of this case. He is, and was at the priority date, a real expert in the field. What may have been obvious to him gives no indication as to what would be obvious to the ordinary skilled but non-inventive worker, even leaving aside geographical considerations“. You see, my ego rejects that part, because I am not a professor, I never considered myself to be ‘unlike any person‘, yes I consider myself to be an expert when it comes to games, but not to the extent the case made Professor Guilbault to be in his field, which gave me the issue of not grasping the level of the skilled person.

I am catching on (even though some parts are still really hard), but I have the rest of the day and 5 evenings to catch up with what I was not grasping. I am getting there though!

It still is an issue on how to set certain things, which is why my timeline differs. All this now shifts back to the games. I spoke about Mass Effect. The first game had an issue with the drive, but when we consider the first 360 systems (some people relied on a console without a hard drive, go figure). They got to play the game. The game was also one of the first to be decently open world, so that means that certain trigger points needed to be created. Which is what we saw in Fable 2 and 3. When you realise this, you can work around them. They are of course games and not real life, so the point shifts. Yet, in all that Mass Effect had an issue with achievements it never really fixed. I ignored it (but was a little miffed to miss out on achievements I should have gotten). Mass Effect (apart from the glitches) made a game truly replayable, which makes for more joy, yet unlike Fable 2 it did not create cosmetic alternatives. In all that, who (without cheating or hint guides) knew you could get to see Tali? Mass Effect 2 went even further in all this even as the game is still mostly the same, you can replay in another role giving power to replayability. Mass Effect is one of the only series ever to pull it off to this extent. So, yes, Mass Effect had issues (and glitches), yet the overall issue people had was with the ending. I less so when you realise the story in its totality, but the last one was a little sloppy in places. I saw through all that. So am I a nagger, a person skilled in the art, or am I beyond that? I have been around since before the VIC-20, so I know my games. In all that Mass Effect 3 amazed by offering the best multi player environment I have ever participated in (still not surpassed today).

Here is the kicker where does that leave the other game designers? In the mind of many we see that good gaming might start with replication, but the visionary evolves that into innovation and offer something totally new, something we all desire to play. I think the game Evolve is almost there. It is close to what Mass Effect 3 was, which is also dependent on a great AI and even though the levels in Evolve are bigger, you are still basically in a ‘cage’ with the big nasty. In all this Ubisoft is not sitting still. Although no personal evidence at present, as far as I can tell, from what I saw their new upcoming title ‘For Honor‘ is showing to innovate multi player from what was into what others desire. This is a very good thing! Jason VandenBerghe seems to have figured out what the big players were either not comprehending, or basically were ignoring. Now I am not one for hack and slash, I am not one for melee games, but I can stare in awe at the achievement of innovative gaming. This is what we will get in 2016. Perhaps Sean Murray (No Man’s Sky) wakes up one morning and realises that keeping people in the dark is only short term acceptable, but that is a lesson he must consider by himself.

Back to the innovators. One of the considerations with a person skilled in the art is: ‘A PSA would be likely to access and search IP Australia’s patent and design databases or get someone qualified to do it for them before releasing a new design of a ladder into the marketplace even though the level of technology is relatively low‘, this could be shaped into ‘A PSA would be likely to access and search IP Australia’s patent and design databases before releasing a reengineered design of a ladder, sufficiently distinct from the original into the marketplace as an innovative patent regardless of the level of technology required‘. In my mind I wonder how much power those with the ability to reengineer can hold, those who can see and value the originals for what they are. It is a legal trap to some extent, because the patent has protection under ‘they are more similar than dissimilar’, the registrar will take that into consideration and when it does go to court it will be an issue to argue, which is why I foresaw the evolution of mobiles, not in hardware, but a mobile generic base that is not unlike a stem cell approach, the software will shape the actual device and now we have two issues. Many nations are not have or reject more often software patents. Some state “The rapid decline in software patents is a huge boon for innovation“, yet in hindsight, there is another issue. Yes, I am all for innovation and bring it on, but not unlike Assassins Creed Unity it becomes more about the now and more about the quick sale and not about the quality of aftercare. As we move from a quality product to a short term choice, how do we fare? Is your budget ready for the annual purchase of a mobile? This is linked to all this, it is not just the Person Skilled in the Art, or the Person Skilled into the reinvented art. As we move from art to conceptual art, we also move from the finality of a choice to the transient of what might not become (again that assassins game comes to mind). All these elements move us in a direction that I regard as dangerous, we move from creators to innovators. Which was always intended to be a move that evolves into true new creators. No, now we move from creators to cheap solutions, something patents were never supposed to do, the person skilled in the art is the push we did not tailor to. I am evidence of that. I could never keep up with Richard Garriot or Peter Molyneux. Even when we spoke I saw their minds moving on to really new things, not iterations of the ‘what is now’. That is what corporate greed got us. A move away from the future. Even if we consider the computer as hardware, the timeline from the 8088 to the I7 now. The processors are no longer truly new, just slightly faster. A market controlled desperate to hold on what they have and not to lose it. That is not how the 80286 came to fruition, in that Mass Effect from game 1 trough game 2 to game 3 made jumps, not mere steps. You only have to replay the first one and the second one to see the leap we got. Assassins Creed showed the same in the original and 2, what came after became steps towards iterative work, iterative work is not innovative, which is why the small indie developers must be protected, if we are to move forward we have to protect true futures instead of orchestrated options.

Here I am still deliberating Person Skilled in the art where Lord Diplock states ‘a patent specification is a unilateral statement by the patentee, in words of his own choosing, addressed to those likely to have a practical interest in the subject matter of his invention‘ and the subsequent resolution by Lord Justice of Appeal Waller ‘a man concerned with the construction of a steel lintel to whom the use of the word ‘vertical’ would indicate precision‘. Here I find the issue with both parts, the second might be overruling the first, but the protection, or at least the approach from a malicious side gives pause to vertical could imply accepted to be ‘cheaper’, for if the engine is not tuned to be finer, it will be constructed to be cheaper, life has shown us that in the iterative part, which is part of the mess we now face. In my view the law must lead but it adheres to the view of those who get to speak, which are the people who have the established base of wealth. The true innovator who moves to creation is never that, so the future is tainted by those who have, they either own those who try to push forward and they then adjust the push for maximum wealth, or they buy out those who they do not owe and again they get to control the product.

The game of Patent Law is harsh, difficult and rewarding, because Patent Law was to be a fair field and in that it still is, the world around the law has changed. I am still trying to get the materials and pass this subject, but I also wonder, what can the law do to keep the field fair? In my view, the law has addressed some parts, but the issue where innovation is too often replaced with iteration (pharmaceutical patents for example), how to address that part?

Well I am off to lunch and after that redo my parts on infringements, which would go further if I did not get stumped by texts like: “Further, because the edges at either end of the column neatly align with one another a plurality of such columns of the same height can be suitably employed on an even surface to stably support various objects including a coffee table top or barbecue plate without rocking, for example. The column structure can also be used by itself as a tree guard“.

Life might be a game, but patent Law is not the clearest of rule books to define it by.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Law, Science

Tagged as Abbott Laboratories v Corbridge Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 810, Electronic Arts, For Honor, Jason VandenBerghe, Justice Windeyer, Lord Diplock, Lord Justice of Appeal, Lord Justice of Appeal Waller, Mass Effect, No man's sky, Person Skilled in the art, Peter Molyneux, Professor Guilbault, Richard Garriot, Sean Murray, Sunbeam Corporation v. Morphy-Richards (Australia) Pty Ltd [1961] HCA 39, Ubisoft

September 9, 2015 · 21:39

The cold light of logic

I have been jabbing my head whether I should write this. You see there is a witch-hunt going on and I honestly have an issue with witch-hunts. In my mind, a witch-hunt is never ever done under the light of reasoning. It is always done hiding behind and exploiting waves of emotions. All this started when a barrister called Charlotte Proudman decided to link to another barrister named Alexander Carter-Silk. The man accepted and wrote the quotes “Always interest to understant people’s skills and how we might work together“, he was delighted to connect, but the statement (given before the quote) that became the issue was “I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture”.

The wave of accusation that followed regarding ‘misogynistic behaviour’ regarding a Human Rights Barrister is now completely out of control. Anyone who has a chip to grind seems to go out on a free for all.

For my view? It is a stunning picture. I say that after have been a photographer for wel over 25 years. I started my photography passion in the late 70’s and seldom have I seen a photo of this level of quality. I’ll up the ante! I state here and now that you will not find 1000 photos of this quality in LinkedIn, a place with 300,000,000 registered members. I compared the photo of Charlotte Proudman to Kim Kardashian, Ariana Grande (Nickelodeon actress), Taylor Swift and Zac Efron. They are not even close to the photo result of Charlotte Proudman. Now, as a photographer the first person I blame for that is the photographer.

After that I wonder whether Charlotte Proudman (in this specific case) is overreacting. Consider the emotion you feel when I state this! I am not claiming she is, I am wondering whether she is. That remains a valid question and if you cannot consider that, then you should not judge because whatever you think you are weighing, you are definitely weighing elements you are not honestly considering, which implies the act of misjudgment

The writer stated from the beginning “this is probably horrendously politically incorrect“, in all this he mentioned the picture, not the person.

And let’s be clear, When I digged a little and found the same picture in high resolution (from her website), which it is the same pic we saw in both LinkedIn and on her Twitter account. The photo is what I regard as pristine quality, now the question the follow are mere questions. I do not know the person, I never met her and I have no idea what she is like. Yet the image shows her skin to be perfect (was it photo shopped?), her eyes have a colouring and clarity I have seldom witnessed in person. I compared them to the close ups of the eyes of Ali Larter, Mila Jovovich and Claudia Schiffer. Not the colour of the eyes, but the super sharp colouring of the eyes. All these facts do not make for the mind of Charlotte Proudman, but take these elements and now consider a very professional photo of Charlotte Proudman. Her photo stands miles above the photos of women (men too) that make a living from their looks. In all the witch-hunting waves, no seemed to have taken a rational look at what was stated by a Human Rights Barrister.

Not some lawyer or Judge in the commercial field, nope a Human Rights Barrister!

Now, we can agree that the statement was unfortunate and it was most definitely not the best statement to make, but this barrister must have been blown away by the image that was linked to the connection, I was blown away and I have been a photographer for a long time.

There is another quote (at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/08/charlotte-proudman-alexander-carter-silk-linkedin-photo-comment-law-firms), it is “Most people post pretty unprofessional pictures on LinkedIn, my comment was aimed at the professional quality of the presentation on LinkedIn, which was unfortunately misinterpreted“. I personally agree with that part.

In her own statement “The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance“, so in that light how should we see the LinkedIn photo from a Caroline Pemberton? She is a TV presenter, a producer and her photo shows the image of an experienced model. We could go on with models like Nikki Prat and Sue Di Chio, The quality of the photo of Charlotte Proudman beats them all with miles to spare. No one took a good look at the picture and they all hid behind the emotions of text. By the way, the pictures of men (even those dependent on looks) are massively worse. Russel Crowe, Zac Efron, Richard Branson even Barack Obama. Now, I cannot vouch whether those profiles are real, yet with 8 million followers at least one real profile will be amongst them.

In all this there is a reality. “‘I am on Linked-in for business purposes, not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men“, as she herself states. There is 0% doubt that this does not happen, yet in all this, I have some serious doubts whether Mr Carter-Silk had any intention of being that kind of a person (I never met him, so I cannot vouch for that part), yet in all my years on LinkedIn those in heavy professional walks of life, most of them rely on LinkedIn and pardon the ‘unacademic’ phrase, those who rely on that part of life: “we tend to not shit where we eat”.

Meaning that people like both Alexander Carter-Silk and Charlotte Proudman both see LinkedIn as the professional portal it is. The massive witch-hunt wave I am watching unfold now seems to be about people and their own political agendas. When we see quotes like “Feminist barrister Charlotte Proudman explains why she is NOT for ‘equality’ & how Feminism is NOT about ‘equality’” (from @FeminismIsLies), we must acknowledge that the spinning is starting. In final thoughts, I must give mention to Sam Thomas (@iamsamthomas) with “Spot of advice, gents: “I appreciate this is probably horrendously politically incorrect” is never a promising opener“, he is absolutely correct! In equal measure mention must be given to Sarah Butcher (@MadameButcher) who stated “What to do when someone tells you your LinkedIn photo is ‘the most stunning they’ve ever seen“.

Both sides made mistakes one side for stating amazement the other, not for speaking up (which one should always do), but by speaking up against the one person who more likely than not had no misogynistic or sexist objective in mind. I have been wrong in the past, I will be wrong in the future, but here, I get to rely on 35 years of experience in photography and it is unlikely that I could have made that shot (but then, I was never graduated with a degree in photography.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alexander Carter-Silk, Ali Larter, Ariana Grande, Barack Obama, Caroline Pemberton, Charlotte Proudman, Claudia Schiffer, Kim Kardashian, LinkedIn, Mila Jovovich, Nikki Prat, Richard Branson, Russel Crowe, Sue Di Chio, Taylor Swift, Zac Efron

September 5, 2015 · 22:37

Ronald McDonald died!

Today’s event is not from the papers, not from some newscast and not from some special operations guide. This is just me, having a few dollars in my pocket and at some point I was hungry as hell. I needed some food, desperately. So, as I was passing by McDonald’s I made the bad call to enter that place, I had passed Hungry Jacks for the simple reason that the queue looked way too long there, it was lunchtime after all. Now, Macca’s was never the cheapest of places and when we take a look at their website we see that it is all about ‘the message’, it has always been about the ‘message’, but how should we react when we see their quote: ‘Quality ingredients for quality food’. The ingredients do not mention bacon, perhaps there are no quality requirements for bacon?

When looking at their menu, the triple cheeseburgers is not even mentioned, so again, perhaps there are no quality requirements for that ‘food option’?

What brought this about? Well, as the images show, I ordered a triple cheeseburger and as I like a cheeseburger to have some bacon, I decided to add bacon to that order, added $1. Seemed a little large, but, I was hungry, so as the receipt shows, my lunch $6.50.

My lunch got served, here we have the kicker, look at the size of that….Whatever that was. Take a look, I used my middle finger, just to show how the burger is barely a finger long (honestly!) and we have to be fair and take the longest finger. So, even though it is called a triple cheeseburger with bacon, it looks like finger food, one finger squared, just one piece of finger food at $6.50.

Now let’s take a look at the reality with the last part.

Take a look at that lovely bacon, a little less than $12 a Kilogram. Yes, all that bacon, whilst the piece shown in the previous picture is likely to be no more than 25 grams, so McDonald’s has a 400% margin (roughly) on bacon (likely more as they get a much better price deal then consumers do).

Now, for the most I have no issue with shops having margins, but consider that lately, we see an army of non-McDonald’s people make claims in many places (like the Huffington post) ‘Commenting in the New York Times Kyle Smith says that those opposing the idea of the McDouble’s nutritional worth, are ignoring the fact that it is great value-for-money for customers‘ (a 2013 article). Now for some cold logic, when a company offers an addition with a margin of over 400%, the idea ‘value for money‘ is something we can ignore from day one. In addition, when se see (at http://www.forbes.com/companies/mcdonalds/), stated to have a 92 billion market cap, with the ‘achievement’ #124 in Profit, we can again throw ‘value for money‘ into the wind. You see, value for money requires something to be well under 400% profitable to be allowed that title. I have nothing against Macca’s making money, for the most I never spend money there, so if others want to buy that food, than that is just fine with me. Value for money means a sizeable (or really cheap) portion. KFC with their deals lately (last month fries for $1 and this month 24 nuggets for $10), now that is actual ‘value’, not too nutritious, but still value. A burger the size of one finger squared is not good value, that is food at a higher price than the average tapas place would offer it (I consider Tapas to be actual finger food of decent quality) which is at times at least genuinely nutritious (as far as tapas can be nutritious).

You see, these ‘junk food vendors’ are now moving into another direction. Now we see a very dangerous development when papers, not just the Huffington post, where this quote came from (at http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/30/mdonalds-mcdouble-cheapest-nutritious-food-in-history_n_3675128.html) state: “Junk food costs as little as $1.76 per 1,000 calories, whereas fresh veggies and the like cost more than 10 times as much, found a 2007 University of Washington survey for the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. A 2,000-calorie day of meals would, if you stuck strictly to the good-for-you stuff, cost $36.32, said the study’s lead author, Adam Drewnowski” You see, obesity and other problems tend to be caused by junk food, not by vegetables.

Professor Adam Drenowski knows this, hence it is my personal opinion that he has been misquoted in a massively unacceptable way. In his article ‘Obesity, diets, and social inequalities’ (attached at the end) we see “As incomes drop, energy-dense foods that are nutrient poor become the best way to provide daily calories at an affordable cost. By contrast, nutrient-rich foods and high-quality diets not only cost more but are consumed by more affluent groups“, in addition there is “given economic constraints, especially among lower income groups, not all consumers have the same degree of choice when it comes to purchasing healthful fresh produce, fruit, lean meats, and fish. For many, the choice was removed long ago by economic and employment policies“, which is what is at the heart of this (source: Wiley Online Library: Drewnowski, A. (2009), Obesity, diets, and social inequalities. Nutrition Reviews, 67: S36–S39. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00157.x).

You see News Corp (at http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/mcdonalds-sending-profits-to-singapore-to-dodge-497-million-in-tax-according-to-report/story-fnkgdftz-1227361248667) stated that ‘McDonald’s sending profits to Singapore to dodge $497 million in tax, according to report‘, the quote “McDonald’s uses its franchising model to generate most of its revenue through royalty payments which are then siphoned off into offshore tax subsidiaries, the majority of which it does not disclose in its annual reports” should not be a surprise, yet is McDonalds to blame? In the end business is business and if the population is unwilling to pass Maccas by, do we have a right to complain? The additional quote “McDonald’s “operates an extensive network of subsidiaries in tax havens, the majority of which it does not disclose, and is not required to disclose under SEC rules, in its annual report”“, is all about the ’emotion’ but the reality is that McDonald’s is not breaking any laws! Politicians have again and again refused to close some of these loopholes. These are acts not achieved on both sides of the political aisle, which means that none of them get to sling any mud!

Which gets us to: ““There is no excuse for governments to cut public services like health and education when they let companies like McDonald’s shift billions of dollars in taxes offshore,” Public Service International general secretary Rosa Pavanelli said in a statement“, yet Miss Pavanelli seems to skate around the issue that until GOVERNMENTS close the taxation loopholes they have, large corporations can continue their ‘business as usual’. That is the part many players have remained silent on. Australian SBS ‘the Backburner’ (Australian version of the Onion) gave us the reality in another way. They stated “International fast food chain McDonald’s has defended its poor taxation record saying that it should be exempt as it does a public good of slowly killing the population” (at http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2015/05/20/mcdonalds-ceo-we-may-not-pay-tax-least-were-killing-you). This could be truer than we bargained for, especially when we consider the paper by Professor Adam Drewnowski. Still, McDonalds has not done anything wrong, or have they? OK, they did not break any laws (at present), as far as I can tell. Yet, questions need to be asked and it is time that certain issues are dealt with. You see, as I personally see it, our time is wasted by both politicians and the press. The article from last May in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/05/mcdonalds-tax-avoidance-investigation-europe) gives us the quote “The European Union competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager said on Tuesday that she was examining claims, made by trade unions, that McDonald’s paid just €16m of tax on royalties worth €3.7bn between 2009 and 2013“, and only now this is investigated? In addition we see “Heidi Barker, a spokeswoman for McDonald’s, which on Monday promised to transform itself into a more modern, progressive and transparent burger company, said: “We will decline to comment on your inquiry.”“, invoking emotion against McDonald’s, yet nowhere do we see the statement: “The European Union is investigating required changes to the European tax system so that EEC governments will receive taxation due“. That part is missing in equal measure from most of the Commonwealth nations, which beckons the question ‘Who is serving who in the end?’ and why has it taken so long and so many administrations for any government to truly address it? Questions the press at large does not seem to be asking either, just hands us ‘emotional’ editorial on how evil a food place could be.

In addition, we should address one final part. It is the statement involving former CEO Jim Skinner (2004 – 2012) “However McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner defended Ronald McDonald by saying that he is an ambassador for good and “it’s all about choice”“, so if it is about choice and the choice of McDonald’s has become exploiting maximised profit (which is not a crime), can we accept that the ‘original’ Ronald McDonald is truly dead and will the next McDonald’s clown we see be spotted wearing a Gieves & Hawkes suit?

I’ll let you decide!

Drewnowski-2009-Nutrition_Reviews

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Adam Drewnowski, American Dietetic Association, Commonwealth, Forbes, Gieves & Hawkes, Heidi Barker, Huffington Post, Jim Skinner, KFC, Kyle Smith, Maccas, Margrethe Vestager, McDonalds, New York Times, Ronald McDonald, Rosa Pavanelli, Wiley Online Library

August 30, 2015 · 11:54

Medici decided to do Shakespear

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their entrances. This is what went through my mind when I saw ‘Phone hacking: CPS may bring corporate charges against Murdoch publisher‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/28/phone-hacking-cps-may-bring-corporate-charges-rupert-murdoch-publisher) this morning. You see, the phone hacking scandal is not new, this started in 2011, and now, 4 years later the CPS decides to get a clue (or was that gives a toss?). It matters not where they are at, the news as given seems to be the aftermath to the party someone seemed to have missed. The question becomes, who is the mad hatter? Is it the one giving the party? Perhaps that label is attached to a notion, a gimmick or even an organisation. It does not seem to be an individual. Let’s take a look at the story, you see, this is the fact of writing on the mad hatter “The Hatter explains to Alice that he and the March Hare are trapped in a never-ending tea party because, when he tried to sing for the Queen of Hearts at a celebration, she sentenced him to death for ‘murdering the time’. He escaped this fate, but Time, out of anger at his attempted to ‘murder’, has halted himself for the Hatter, keeping him and the March Hare at 6:00 pm forever“. If we paraphrase ‘murdering time’, we could get ‘wasting time’. But whose time was wasted? Is one of the players really a mad hatter? We no longer use Mercury in the fabrication of hats, but the issue remains, this article reads like it is something else entirely. I could go on with the March hare, but I think I am already getting through to you. The question becomes, who is Alice and why is she at this party?

There are two quotes, one following the other that gives way to my thoughts “The Metropolitan police handed over a file of evidence on News International – now renamed News UK – to the CPS for consideration after an investigation stretching back to 2011, when the News of the World was closed at the height of the scandal“, which gives us, why is the CPS only now taking a ‘better’ look? 4 years later, is that not odd? Then we get “We have received a full file of evidence for consideration of corporate liability charges relating to the Operation Weeting phone-hacking investigation”, which implies that the CPS and other players never looked at corporate liability charges the way it should have been looked at. This now gives us loads of questions and it should leave you with the question ‘What exactly was behind the looking glass?’ Who was looking, or better stated, who was NOT looking.

The quote “The CPS decision comes six months after the US department of justice told Murdoch’s company it would not face charges in the US” leaves the impression that the actions of the CPS have been in very bad taste, the rights of the people had been violated with impunity and only after the press at large felt the impending dangers that their time of abuse was over (due to the Levison report) did they dress up like debutantes, eager to take whatever was ‘thrusted’ into them to avoid losing ‘their’ power base. All the efforts in how they claimed that they would be worthy of self-administration, worthy to remain ‘unaccountable’. The ink had not even dried on the verdict when we got to read about the ‘suicide mission’ of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

Only now do we see that Murdoch’s company ‘could’ be prosecuted (that does not mean it will be successful) regarding corporate liability. I am not buying it. When we consider the subtitle ‘The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is set to interview former Tesco chief executive Philip Clarke as part of its criminal investigation into the supermarket chain‘ (at http://economia.icaew.com/news/august-2015/sfo-questions-former-tesco-ceo), whilst the news remains massively silence regarding linked party Pricewaterhouse Coopers, we have to start asking a few very serious questions. Yet, the article also tells us: “the Financial Reporting Council launched a probe into the roles of PwC and various members of the accountancy profession involved in the preparation, approval and audit of its accounts“, we should worry if any of this will go anywhere. The entire Tesco matter was a six billion plus pound drop on the economy. Not the smallest of events, yet no serious investigations, or if there is, the press is steering clear of all this, which is another oddity entirely.

Yet 10 days ago, we see “The FCA has dropped its probe into Quindell after the Serious Fraud Office launched a criminal investigation into the business and accounting practices at the insurance technology firm” with the added “In May Quindell announced that PricewaterhouseCoopers had completed an independent review of a number of its accounting policies”, as well as “PwC also identified that some policies were not appropriate. Quindell’s own review confirmed PwC’s findings“. Are the involved players playing footsie (the use of involved is intentional, this game had more than two players), or are we seeing the start of a new dance, one where in the end, no one goes to jail and no one loses anything, other than a few slapping of the wrists.

So how does this all links? Well, it doesn’t link, they are separate entities, but the given is that we are watching several plays where pretty much all the actors will get away with murder and as the cadavers on stage are real, the people go home reflecting on how realistic it all looked, not realising that we watched games with actual casualties.

Are we facing the beginning of a new Machiavellian play here?

The quote “A source familiar with the original investigation said there could be an element of politics in the transfer of the file. “My best guess is because nobody in the police has the bottle to draw the line under this, they have just passed the buck on the CPS” gives us something to ponder. The CPS website gives us this: “The statutory role of the Crown Prosecution Service is to advise the police in certain circumstances, and to conduct criminal prosecutions. The police provide evidence and information to enable the CPS to carry out these statutory functions“, which gives us the thought ‘if it is statutory, why was this not done sooner?‘ So why did this happen after such a long time, why was the CPS not chomping at the bits on day one that there was a clear issue with the news of the world? In my view, we need to consider that there are more elements in play. Political elements. It is merely a speculation from my side. I would think that cases like Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile prosecution elements would have learned their lesson, but that does not seem to be the case and face it, this is about money, nothing sexual sexy about it, so the press does not seem to care.

The only question becomes is this truly about going after Murdoch, or is this about tying down resources so that they do not have to go after PricewaterhouseCoopers? My side on this is purely speculative, but consider the fact that the CPS has 8000 man and the fact that the SFO would be (read should be) looking at PwC, the fact that the press steers clear of it is weird to say the least. The Tesco mess will take a long time to unravel, the fact that it is kept away from everywhere is a matter of concern to all.

That is where we are at. So there was no typo at the start, we are watching certain people wield a spear, it is thrust at certain players who will most likely survive and it seems to be for the benefit of theatrics and ‘non-convictions’. Even now, as we see PwC named in linking to Quindell, the press steers clear form PwC regarding Tesco. So in all this, what is wrong with the picture we see, moreover, why is there ‘suddenly’ (implied it is sudden, it is not a given) an investigation 4 years later, one that seems to have been activated as the Americans pull away, which beckons the question why the CPS waited for the American parts in the first place.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alice in Wonderland, CPS, Crown Prosecution Service, DPP, FCA, Jimmy Savile, Machiavelli, Mad Hatter, March Hare, Murdoch publisher, Operation Weeting, Philip Clarke, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, Quindell, Rolf Harris, Rupert Murdoch, Serious Fraud Office, SFO, Tesco, Through the looking glass

August 16, 2015 · 22:47

Hunting for a fee

It has been a mere week since we saw the message from some ‘experts’ on the daughter of David Beckham. What I would call a beyond acceptable choice on the media and its non-stop pursuit of what we consider to be values. It does so whilst doing whatever it can to get ratings, to grow circulation. A tsunami of what we call ‘the Glossy invasion‘.

Yesterday we saw (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/14/opinions/arbiter-royal-photos/index.html), with the title ‘Can UK royals win battle against paparazzi?‘ In my view there will be no battle, as we see the quote “While aides were quick to praise the British media for not printing illicit photos, they issued their strongest warning yet to those who choose to forgo decent editorial practices” as well as “Many would argue that all children, not just those who are royal, should be allowed to play free from the prying eye of a photographer intent on financial gain, sequestered in the boot of his car and equipped with a long lens“. It comes with the final mention “how do you mandate a global press“. Which in my view is very easy, you wage war, plain and simple!

For the larger extent the media has shown themselves to be little more than the mere equivalent of a prostitute with the moral compass that is significantly worse than that of a crack dealer.

But is this the extent of it? Are we overreacting? Let’s face it, pictures are taken every day, we photograph celebrities every day (when we can), but to what extent will we ignore a person’s right to privacy? Many like me, we will bump into the odd celebrity at times, hoping to get a picture or a selfie, many will oblige, take the time and effort. Yet not all are in that mindset, especially when they feel unready to face the scrutiny of the lens. Some will try this at red carpet events when the stars are all ready to be photographed. So those moments are often easy moments to get the star we would like to snap for that Kodak moment. The Paparazzi is another matter entirely. They have always been in the news and when it comes to Royal families, these people tend to go completely overboard. I still personally feel that Lady Diana Spencer was murdered by the paparazzi. Now we see that her grandchildren are increasingly in danger by perhaps even those very same paparazzi.

So is this real danger or alleged danger?

This is a question that is more than just a mere legality, history has shown that extremists will take any chance to propel their own agenda at the expense of anyone else. Which means that for these extremists, the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be regarded as legitimate targets and as such the paparazzi could be intended or not aiding said extremists. In my personal view the quote “London’s Metropolitan Police soon after released a statement saying protection officers had to make split-second decisions, and photographers using covert tactics ran the risk of being mistaken for someone intent on doing harm” (source ABC at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-15/royals-increasingly-dangerous-tactics-photograph-prince-george/6699632) is something to ponder. In my view (again a personal one) shooting one of these paparazzi’s ‘accidently’ might not be the worst idea, it seems that when these individuals realise that whatever they do comes at a cost of life, their moral compass tends to reset towards what keeps them alive.

Yet this is only the introduction to an article that graced the Independent on Saturday (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prince-george-and-the-paparazzi-deferring-to-the-long-arm-of-buckingham-palace-10457349.html). Here we see the quote in the subtitle: ‘the former boss of Hacked Off, a critic of press intrusion, says this time the royals are expecting too much protection‘. Is that so?

Consider this quote: “along with the carefully posed images of George holding his baby sister, Princess Charlotte. The “bad” photos, to be clear, might look cute but they’re not, since they were taken by unauthorised photographers. These pictures are so bad, in fact, that the police have warned anyone taking them that they risk being shot. Has everyone taken leave of their senses?”

I am not sure whether they have!

You see, I personally have the skill to take someone’s head of at three times the distance of what my large lens can do (the 200mm I could afford), so when a paparazzi holding a shoulder mount for their camera, could at 300-600 meters easily be mistaken for a rifle, the Leupold VX-3L 6.5-20x56mm is the size of a Canon lens, so I feel quite outspoken that the police has not taken leave of their senses!

Yet my view in all this is not even that side, it is not the ‘morality’ of the paparazzi, even though they rank up there with ice pushers on a schoolyard. This is not about them trying to get the shots of an adult, this is about children, royalty or not! That part does not matter. Just as another article that saw us in defense of David Beckham’s little princess, is setting us off in equal measure here.

This is not merely about a child with a dummy. This is about what was behind that. Let me re-iterate that. Several sources state “The comfort from sucking on a pacifier provide security and comfort can reduce the amount of stress a baby experiences“. I am not stating that I know why the Beckham’s were in that article, the entire dummy (read pacifier) could be about his little girl not feeling well, yet I feel certain that the paparazzi are leaving their own mark of stress with these children. We all have a direct need to keep children safe, those who cause a child to be in distress can find themselves suddenly surrounded by people wanting to do those transgressors harm and on our scale in general, a paparazzi does not really score that high and after what happened to the grandmother of Prince George and Princess Charlotte we see even less reasons to go soft on those paparazzi.

In my view, the courts seem to have gone overboard to protect the media in the past. When we look at Von Hannover v Germany [2004], we saw that even though an injunction was granted, we see that ‘allowances’ are made for public figures. We tend to get the following “a public figure does not necessarily enjoy the same respect for their private life as others, as matters of public concern might justify the publication of information about that person that might otherwise interfere with the right to privacy“, yet in this light, clear consideration must be given to children, especially those under 17 to be regarded out of bounds. If we can accept that Harper Seven Beckham is showing possible signs of stress, stress that could very well be brought through unbalanced and unwanted exposure to the media and strangers, the law will require additional tightening, especially in regards to the right of privacy and additional optional prosecution to those invading that privacy.

In the case of the very long lens that case is much harder to make as the perpetrator is nowhere near the victim, yet in that same case, in the case of Prince George and Princess Charlotte, the possible interpreted danger to their lives by the people assigned to protect these royal members, to them the option arrives that any threat to the royal family must be met with deadly determination if need be.

As such, responding to the allegations in the independent, no one took leave of their senses. Some took leave of common sense for money and that tends to come with a consequence. Yet the article in the Independent is quite good, it asks valid questions. When we see “People are allowed to take pictures in a public place as long as their behaviour doesn’t amount to stalking, in which case it could have been dealt with under the Protection from Harassment Act“, this is a valid point. But in this case there are two additional elements. The paparazzi could easily be mistaken for a Predatory stalkers, an individual spying on a victim in order to prepare and plan an attack, which led me to the extremist link. A side that the writer of the article should have mentioned more prominently. In addition, this is not against adults, this is against children, a group that deserve additional layers of protection, no matter how public a figure their parent is, or both of them are. A situation that applies to both the Duke and duchess of Cambridge as well as the Beckham’s. The Independent does raise parts again when they state “The couple may fear a terrorist attack, but that’s a reason for reviewing overall security, including the wisdom of allowing George to play in a public park“, which again is a fair enough statement. Yet in equal measure is that until that fear is reasonable, having children to be a child everywhere is a given right to the child and as such we, not the child will have to make allowances, including an extended right to privacy and security. A side Niraj Tanna seemed to ignore for what is likely to be founded on income, not any greater good.

So does Joan Smith, former executive director of ‘Hacked Off’ have a case here? She brings it well enough, but in my view, elements are missing. No matter whose children they are, children are entitled to extensive layers of protection, especially against paparazzi and outside (read non family based pressures). Even if these hunters take their respectable distance, the pictures will haunt them forever, they will become the object of extreme obsession to some, which tends to go wrong at some point.

In light of consenting to photography, the ‘non-consenting child’ seems to be the factor that many seem to ignore. Media law is due a massive update on a global scale, we have catered to what people regard as ‘freedom of the press’ for far too long, a press that seems to take a wide berth around PriceWaterhouse Coopers and Tesco issues (the PwC side of it), or the SFO matters connected to all this. Now, we can understand that that issue is not something that is of interest for the Glossy magazines, but the media is for the most not some little magazine. They are conglomerates. Companies like Bauer Media and VNU can invoke pressures that can paralyse governments. They control dozens of magazines that can change public opinion in a heartbeat. They only way to deal with this is to adapt laws that give added protection to media exploitation of children, whether they come from public figures or not. In addition it is interesting to raise the case of Paparazzo Richard Fedyck from April this year. The quote “The Vancouver celebrity photographer faces charges of assault with a weapon, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and criminal harassment. He made his first court appearance after arriving hours in advance in a bid to avoid cameras and media” gives us the clear view that the paparazzi tends to be camera shy. It is equally hilarious that we get “his defence lawyer Jonathan Waddington immediately asked for a ban on publication of the court proceedings”. Irony is such a lovely dish at times (at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/paparazzo-in-ryan-reynolds-hit-and-run-case-makes-court-appearance-1.3053082). So it seems that privacy is treasured by paparazzi when they are the focal point of issues.

It is high time that some legal media matters change as soon as possible, especially where it concerns children.

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABC, Bauer Media, CBC, CBC Canada, children, CNN, David Beckham, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Hacked off, Harper Seven Beckham, Joan Smith, Jonathan Waddington, Lady Diana spencer, London's Metropolitan Police, Niraj Tanna, Paparazzi, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Protection from Harassment Act, PwC, Richard Fedyck, Tesco, The Independent, VNU, Von Hannover v Germany [2004]

August 11, 2015 · 23:25

About the child

This all started innocently enough. Here I was, reading on the facts for an exam next week and suddenly, during my break the news on David Beckham passes by. Now, personally I do not care about him (no offense intended). He is a soccer player, and I am not much of a soccer fan, so I was about to click next when the title hit me ‘‘No right to criticise’: David Beckham hits back at Daily Mail coverage’, which is funny on two parts, the first that someone gives any consideration to the Daily Mail is funny enough, especially when ‘Still in the honeymoon phase! Michelle Keegan flaunts her long legs in stripy mini-dress as she goes hand-in-hand with husband Mark Wright in LA‘ is considered headline news. The second reason is that this is about a child (yes, a small non-grown up individual) using a dummy.

And the by-line is ‘Experts warn David and Victoria Beckham’s little girl….‘, giving plenty of hilarious consideration as the ‘expert’ either knows all the facts (as a consultant of the parent) and as such he/she has broken all kinds of ethical standards, or the person (in the article named as Clare Byam-Cook) is not entirely aware of the massive lack of data she should have before speaking. Consider the Facts (at http://www.contentedbaby.com/team-Clare-Byam-Cook.htm), she is 49, she is a qualified nurse and ‘retired’ from being a midwife in 1985, which is 30 (yes THIRTY) years ago, so 49-30 is? She retired from being a midwife at the age of 19! Can anyone explain her ‘expertise’ to me? If she retired in 2015, there would be expertise, but that is not the case according to the facts. In addition, it seems to me that she could not have all the facts, so why the warning?

I know life in the NHS is hard, but if you can afford to retire at 19, she must have done something (not sure what).

So what is going on?

Well, for that we need to take a look at the Instagram of David Beckham. Here he states: “Why do people feel they have the right to criticize a parent about their own children without having any facts?? Everybody who has children knows that when they aren’t feeling well or have a fever you do what comforts them best and most of the time it’s a pacifier so those who criticize think twice about what you say about other people’s children because actually you have no right to criticize me as a parent“.

Well, I do not have kids, so I would not know, but I was a kid once and when we feel truly bad we tend to become nightmares and as I see it, the little princess got something from daddy that made her feel a little better, so what is the issue? And it seems to me that an instance is not a pattern, an event is not an overwhelming ‘danger’ to the speech of anyone. Yet the Daily Mail needs to get another page with David Beckham on it and as they tend to be clueless on the best of days, this would constitute some level of Journalism. So let’s take another look.

“After about three months, most babies should not need a comforter” is a quote here. Really? If I remember correctly babies start teething at 6 months and I believe that parents will really lose sleep without the pacifier (not Vin Diesel, but that sucking toy). I took a sidestep towards ‘Parenting and Children’s health‘ (at http://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetails.aspx?p=114&np=122&id=1736#8), where I found “Children need the comforter most between about 1 and 3 years of age, before they have learned to feel safe when their parent is not there“. There is a lot more interesting stuff there, but this one applies really nicely, because it applies to Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere and key owner of the Daily Mail! You see, this child is under constant barrage of paparazzi’s and Journo’s (or people calling themselves that) and as such children feel distress, so lacing your paper with recriminations on ‘what a child needs‘ whilst your own media engine could be instrumental in causing distress is like ‘the hack calling the advice of the quack’ (there was a reference to pot, kettle and colour, but I forgot the specifics, all semantics anyway).

So, instead of digging into anything truly newsworthy, we get more invasion of the Beckham’s. Can’t they get a relaxed day with their little one?

Which gets me to me! Why am I picking this up? Well apart from the Guardian siding ever so slightly with David B. We see this quote “Beckham’s Instagram post had been liked more than 404,000 times by Monday evening and attracted more than 12,000 comments, including a large degree of support for his stance” giving us the goods on support, but no one looked at the ‘retired’ midwife herself. She remains casually quoted. I have a partial issue with that, especially after finding more than one ‘health’ source opposing her view.

I do keep a cautious stance regarding some of the health sites, mainly because I have no medical training and I am also not a parent (I am on the other hand one hell of a Medici).

Yet, if I can find these elements so easily, why can’t the Daily Mail do any actual reporting? You see, when we consider “News reports are found in newspapers and their purpose is to inform readers of what is happening in the world around them” we can contemplate that a page was ‘wasted’ on the use of a dummy (read pacifier). Whilst the article is opposed by the health site as it states “As the child gets older and she is able to feel more secure inside herself, she will need the comforter less and it will gradually fall into disuse. It is important for the child to have control over this“, countering more than one statement in the article. In addition there is “If a child still clings to the comforter by school age, it is important to ask what it is that is making the child worried, rather than to take the comforter away“, countering more statements the article makes. Finally there is “It is best for children if they can give up their comforter when they are ready, not when other people think they should“, which takes the cake against statements like “The NHS Choices website recommends parents ‘should avoid using dummies after 12 months of age’ to prevent speech development problems“, I cannot judge this, but several sources have no issues with a dummy being used until she is three, debunking the bulk of all claims. In addition, children do not get permanent teeth until they are 6, until that time they have baby teeth (or milk teeth).

So, as a non-parent, I was able to debunk most of the article, which now just reads like a bad piece of a paper having a go at the Beckham’s. Yet, there is a light in all this, you see, all the information I saw from several sources leave the clear indication “Children use comforters most when they are worried, or afraid, or tired“, if we can prove stress, than it is in view of the court to make it clear that paparazzi and press are a danger to the mental health of a child, which means that no less than 100 meters distance from the child should be kept (which is for a judge to decide). Wouldn’t it be nice that the kids of Beckham will enter an age of privacy only because the Daily Mail ignored basic Journalism?

It’s almost Wednesday! What a lovely day it could be!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as Clare Byam-Cook, Daily Mail, David Beckham, Jonathan Harmsworth, Mark Wright, Medici, Michelle Keegan, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, Victoria Beckham, Viscount Rothermere

August 9, 2015 · 11:45

As the mood changes

There is always a mood change, sometimes it is for good, on other occasions less so. Like a metrometer from one side to the other, in some illusion that we remain neutral, a foundation of somewhere in between. Our daily mood a mere form of aggregation as we decide how we feel. This all relates to politics. It has been tradition in many houses to keep two elements off-topic. The first is religion, the second is politics. It is the second one that is now escalating in Europe. There is no way that people can keep it off the table, because there is a realistic risk that the EEC will not continue. There is a real risk that the EEC will come to an end. We are now at a stage that the EEC will face true hardship in 21 months.

The first element is France. French politics is a mess on the best of days, yet at present they are about to have a European impact. The big player here is Marine Le Pen. National Front is very much on the right side of right as such they have been all about national pride (which is fair enough) and the current mess as France finds itself in, is one that the people are not happy with. Debt is at an all-time high, jobs are low, immigration issues as well as low expectations for the immediate future. Actually, make that an issue for the next 3 years, which means that current President Hollande does not really have too great a chance of getting re-elected. EU Inside (at http://www.euinside.eu/en/analyses/francois-hollandes-battle-for-a-second-term) gives us the following four points that Hollande needs to agree to (they call them conditions).

Improvement in economic performance and most of all a drop in unemployment
Lack of serious competition in the left
Nicolas Sarkozy as a candidate of the right
A second round against Marine Le Pen

The first one is a dud as I see it. The only way to pull that off is to massively cut into the budget on nearly every level. French’s debt being 50% larger than that of the UK is not one to sneer at. Cutting in the UK is already hard beyond believe, so I do not envy President Hollande on that. In addition, whoever voted for him, when they feel the cutting pinch, they will not vote for him as I see it. The second one is a little different, it is not that Hollande is leading, he remains for the most unopposed in this, which is not the same. His current opposition has cushy jobs and going against Hollande for a second term is wasting massive amounts of energy that will not add up to enough. Martine Aubry is mentioned as an option, but the Asbestos debacle and the fact that she is not the favoured choice of the unions will stop this from happening. Lille has a decent economy, is high on the political list as a region, but still without strong Union support, Martine Aubry will not go anywhere. She gets additional visibility through the achievements of the University of Lille in Science and Technology. They are globally renowned, which helps getting an influx of international students through the Erasmus program, an element that does additional good to commerce in that region.

The other choice is Manual Valls, who is considered to be a social liberal, with a whiff of Scandinavian-style social democracy and Blairism, making him a little of everything. This is nice to be accepted on the larger field, but the left (as does the right) has all levels of niches to which he might end up being less of an appeal. Yet the news in the Sydney Morning Herald in January 2015 gives us “Mr Valls was starting a speech to about 700 people in support of his Socialist party’s candidate for a by-election on Tuesday night when the lights went out and his microphone turned silent. The electricity stayed off for about an hour, not just at the venue, but in the whole neighbourhood in Audincourt, eastern France. Mr Valls resumed his speech once the power had come back on” (at http://www.smh.com.au/world/unions-turn-lights-off-on-french-prime-minister-manuel-valls-20150128-130jjl.html), which is not a biggie, but it does imply that unions and Valls are not on the best of turns, all elements taken into account gives us that Manuel Valls could be a replacement, but only if current President Hollande messes things up with the unions, one step he is not likely to make at present.

The third issue is fine with me, we can argue on the qualities of Nicolas Sarkozy, or the desire some voters have to see a lot more of his wife Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, former model and songwriter. He remains a highly experienced politician, so there should not be any issues. Whomever wants to dig up the affair again, better realise fast that France remains the only European nation where Crime Passional gives the slaughterer of an adulterer an acquittal, justice does find a way!

Now we get to the good stuff, the rest was not mere foreplay, but if we do not set the stage, we will not get the right view we need to have. The fourth issue was ‘A second round against Marine Le Pen‘. This is the mother lode, because Marine Le Pen has been growing her influence. National Front has been growing its army all over France and if Marine Le Pen becomes president of the Calais region, it will start changes, more important she will grow influence in Belgium too. Any economic victory she can score in her first year will count twice, it will give her one credit, whilst also removing a credit from Hollande, so two for the price of one. In addition, any moves by Hollande against Calais will not hurt Marine Le Pen, but will count against Hollande. Again, adding hardship and reducing his changes. Yet, these are not the only two players. The Republicans, the Union of Democrats and Independents as well as the Greens. Yet none of them have been loudly fighting for a stronger France (read less dependent), President Hollande has not done enough, or better stated, whatever he did, for the most failed. There is over two point six trillion euro in evidence there. Marine Le Pen should be regarded as a serious contender here.

So how does the mood change?

Whatever France does, is on the turf of France, but there is no secret that Marine Le Pen is all for Frexit if certain essential changes are not made almost immediately. Her move to secede from Shengen and her request for a hearing in these matters. She had gained traction during the Charlie Hedbo events, but now as issues escalate in Calais, her chances increase and this will change the game a little. It is only a little, but it starts the change in moods. You see, there is Frexit and Brexit. We had Grexit, but the people forget (and remain uninformed by the press) that this was never a possibility. I raised them in ‘The mere legality‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/07/06/the-mere-legality/). How many newspapers and news blogs were there to properly inform you on how expulsion is a near legal impossibility? They all danced around the matter of Grexit, something I personally regard as a big ‘No No’. Now things are different, you see both Brexit and Frexit are voluntary, this means that a massive can of worms will open, as the British referendum will be held in 2016, before the French elections and that will impact the French elections too. Hollande and others have been in favour of staying in the EEC and in the Euro. Yet both Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage have given their views. Now that the Greek crises (which was never much of a crises) is ‘presented’ to be over, we must acknowledge that Greece still hasn’t made all the preparations. We see terms like “in the final stretch” and “a complex, three-year deal“. When we look at Reuters, we get language like “Athens is racing to wrap up the bailout agreement of as much as 86 billion euros ($94.35 billion) by as early as Tuesday in a bid to get the first disbursement of aid by Aug. 20“, yet what reforms has Greece delivered? It seems that 86 billion is a sexy topic to have, but on the other side of the fence we now have France and the UK. If Tsipras makes any kind of a gesture towards ‘re-negotiation’ that price will be a very high one. Many nations have had enough of Greek antics and the concessions made are not the kind that the European nations will allow for, because the people are in a clear state of mind, it is coming out of their payment one way or another. This gives strength to both Brexit and Frexit issues. That view was clearly shown last week by Nigel Farage (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33715160). The language remains simple, read: “Nigel Farage has told No campaigners to “stop moaning, stop bitching” or risk losing the EU referendum“, he is clearly ready for war, because whatever victory he gets now, will largely contribute to the 2020 elections. They are still far off, but the Liberal Democrats are basically no more and British Labour isn’t getting its act together. All votes that UKIP could pick up and Nigel seems to be very driven to do just that. In addition, he has France to deal with now too. If the referendum fails and France does move out, the UK will be in a bad spot for at least a year after that, giving the people that fear is what Nigel will be all about and it would be a valid strategy.

Even though some prefer the ‘wait and see’ option, it must be stated that not all is well on this front either. Many of the ‘wait and see’ group are looking nervously at France, the power of Marine Le Pen remains underreported, as well as Grexit was (the legal impossibility of it). Yet the dangers here is that if UK follows France, it will wield a high cost, so the UK must make up its mind on the dangers it faces and it needs to be a proper realistic view, which seems to be less possible as some have been managing bad news, scoring the news that the dangers are less severe. I do not believe that to be the case. More and more do we get to see articles like ‘Greece needs wide debt relief to avoid permanent depression, think-tank warns‘, basically telling us that Greeks debts need to be forgiven (for at least 50%), yet they will not arrest, prosecute or demonise the people behind this folly. They stood overly proud that this is not their fault. Blaming whomever they could. I think that until that moment comes the Greeks will just have to learn the hard way. In addition, who will deal with the losses of these hundreds of billions? Someone is not getting his/her money, how will that reflect on others having to pay? These elements will also fuel both Brexit and Frexit.

This upcoming mood swing is all about financial players trying to prolong the game, all trying to relief debt whilst giving out 86 billion more. Their own selfishness will be the foundation of Brexit and Frexit coming into reality. What excuses will these people give then? Or are they spiking the juice so that they can get their life’s ambition within the next 18 months?

I’ll let you decide on that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Audincourt, Belgium, Brexit, Calais, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, Charlie Hedbo, Erasmus program, euinside, Frexit, Independents as well as the Greens, Inside EU, Liberal Democrats, Manual Valls, Marine Le Pen, Martine Aubry, National Front, Nicolas Sarkozy, Nigel Farage, President Hollande, The Republicans, the Union of Democrats, University of Lille

August 5, 2015 · 23:46

Fine, Finer, Fined

My mother always told me (when I was young) that I was allowed to swear, as long as I did it grammatically correct. Little did I know that mommy made me paint myself into a corner! Ah well, the innocence of youth!

So when the board of directors of the Royal Bank of Scotland learned their usage of adjectives, comparatives and superlative was only correct in theory. First the bank was doing fine, then its position was much finer, only to get fined in the end. Did they realise that the year 10 student in the corner, the one who did not get it, was the one person making an accurate prediction? I’ll bet you tuppence that they never realised that Mr Dunsel was an actual fortune teller.

So, why am I going in this direction?

Well, consider the article ‘RBS share sale explainer: why has Osborne started selling taxpayer’s stake at a loss?‘ (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/rbs-share-sale-explainer-why-has-osborne-started-selling-the-taxpayers-stake-at-a-loss-10437095.html), whilst we heard that the taxpayer lost another billion, due to, I reckon you know what comes after this uncomfortable break: “RBS shares are still trading 33 per cent lower than the Labour government paid for them, which means selling them has incurred a loss for the government of around £1 billion on the first sale of 600m shares“.

As the Guardian reported last week that ‘RBS expects further fines with no let-up from regulators‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/30/royal-bank-of-scotland-expects-further-fines-dividend-delay), we see that not only is the selling of shares costing the taxpayers a billion, the £1.3bn of charges to cover fines and compensation payouts seem to sting a little more than we bargained for. A few of the reasons why the buyback of shares will not happen until 2017, with a decent chance that more hardship will be burdened upon them payers of taxation. So when I see a quote from Sir Philip Hampton stating “The industry as a whole has got a poor track record in predicting these [provisions]. We’ve consistently under-called them”. Can anyone explain to me why the people at RBS are allowed to nag? Consider the quote “the long list of mistakes from the past continued to catch up with the bank” and compare it to the BBC article (at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8392147.stm), which was from 2009 which gave us ‘RBS board could quit if government limits staff bonuses‘ with the quote “they say they have to remain competitive in the market in recruiting senior executives“, which is nice when it deals with the bonuses that go into the millions, but when we see that it is linked to years of inadequacy, mistakes, fines and prosecutions, we need to tailor a solution where some of these bankers need to be barred for life from entering the financial sector. So when we learned in February 2014 that ‘RBS pays out £588m in bonuses despite suffering £8.24bn loss‘, we need to ask a few really serious questions, now that the shares are sold at a massive loss and the total sale could result in total loss of £15bn. I feel certain that I could do a better job, whilst not having any economic degree.

So as a large portion of the UK is in a state of hardship, the failing RBS constituency still makes over half a billion in bonuses. The aftertaste is far beyond bitter, so why get back to all these matters, which in some case is a repetition of events that had passed?

In the first, as I see it, these board members failed, the value of the company is down and as such, in sight of “We’ve consistently under-called them“, they are not due any bonuses until December 2016 and only if the value of the bank is back on par with the share value at which the government bought them. In addition, the news ‘Hedge funds make quick buck after getting wind of RBS stake sale’ from the Financial Times only adds to the bitterness of the taste of shares with pepper and salt. In my view another reason why the bonus of board members and RBS bankers should be set to £0. In addition, as Sir Philip has been around since 2009, whilst getting a not too uncomfortable £750,000. The need for not letting up on allowing the bankers any extras should be considered. So if they would like to retry their bluff of December 2009, where they stated “threatening to resign“, let them. Why does the RBS have any need for employees “consistently under-called them“, whilst at the same time fines for ‘rigging’ are banging the corporate coffers of the RBS, leading to damages that total into billions.

So when did you have a job where the company needs 45 billion from the taxpayer, they have not returned into a state of grace and they still get a 7 figure Christmas present? I never had a job like that. To change my luck, could Sir Philip kindly give me one? I need £8m over the next 3 years (for reasons of retirement). I am willing to do anything legal, including working my bud off to return the RBS to profit. From my point of view, I offer something more than the RBS board ever delivered (well, since 2009), so we can agree that my value is better than their value, ain’t it?

But this is not about me, this is also to a lesser extent not about the board members. This is about the engine behind it and the changes they are about to face. You see the sounds have been there, the rumours have almost forever been there and on the sidelines the links have been there, but what is this linking?

I am referring to the following events ‘Auditors go high-tech to win new business‘ (at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/183cb13c-2557-11e5-bd83-71cb60e8f08c.html), where we see “Auditors have a newfound zest. Rapid developments in digital technology and new rules requiring large companies to invite bids for auditing work at least once a decade have forced accounting firms to refocus on winning new business” and ‘Accountants warn on audit market reforms‘ from last November where we see “Within the “big four” accountancy firms, market share has been shifting. EY has overtaken Deloitte as the third biggest auditor to FTSE 100 clients, behind PwC and KPMG in first and second place, respectively. This month Royal Bank of Scotland announced it had appointed EY as its auditor from 2016, ending a 14-year contract with Deloitte” (at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f22383ca-6410-11e4-bac8-00144feabdc0.html). This is actually more than just the shaking of the trees and the stirring of the gravy bowl. You see this is a shifting picture where the big four are now pushing for data analytics, the Wall Street Journal have been slowly filling the spaces in that regard. The headline ‘Accountants Increasingly Use Data Analysis to Catch Fraud‘ states it, but what do they state? At http://www.wsj.com/articles/accountants-increasingly-use-data-analysis-to-catch-fraud-1417804886, we see “When a team of forensic accountants began sifting through refunds issued by a national call center, something didn’t add up: There were too many fours in the data. And it was up to the accountants to figure out why“. Yes on the night of St. Nicholas the presents are handed out to all and especially the bankers, because analytics are here, the secret sauce of the needy to quench those who want to solve and hide those in the shadows. You see Benford’s Law is here and everything will be OK now! Is that so? Let’s take a look at ‘The Irrelevance of Benford’s Law for Detecting Fraud in Elections‘ (at http://www.vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/benford_pdf_4b97cc5b5b.pdf), where we see: “Detecting and measuring fraud is much like any criminal investigation and requires a careful gathering of all available data and evidence in conjunction with a “theory of the crime” that takes into account substantive knowledge of the election being considered, including the socio-economic and geographic correlates of voting“. This is about voting, so how does this apply? Consider the quote on page 23 “The operant clause here, though, is “in otherwise homogeneous data” since this indicator is intended to detect the heterogeneity introduced by a specific form of fraud“, now we get to those two parts, when we see “In statistics, homogeneity and its opposite, heterogeneity, arise in describing the properties of a dataset, or several datasets. They relate to the validity of the often convenient assumption that the statistical properties of any one part of an overall dataset are the same as any other part” (quick Wiki reference). So as we contemplate “the statistical properties of any one part of an overall dataset are the same as any other part“, ehhh, when has that ever been the case in keeping financial books? It is a balancing act, which means half on one side, means half on the other side (does that not prove the point?) No, because they are two sides of the same coin, double elements so to speak, so what to include, what not, the formula becomes unbalanced even further. Consider that banking is all about specifics, I will stay away from that element for a while, because the element of specifics is the issue, consider the graphs below.

I can tell you now that I violated loads of rules. It comes from a list of 400 movies, their revenue. So, it spans several year, 400 numbers and those are the most visible reasons why Benford does not apply. The books of Tesco have similar issues. Dozens of accounts, interactions, loads of numbers spanning a time zone, but at times those numbers are also of a small count. Could this work with a ‘grocery’ store? Consider the amount of articles at 99c and £1.99. The amount of special offers going on, day to day (Tesco example), from that, if we use EVERY transaction, we will see skewing, giving us the problem, banks have similar issues, but now more often with seriously large numbers. If we ‘Benford’ the hell out of all the commissions, will they stand the ‘fraud’ test? If not, will the bank see that cash returned, or will we suddenly see a ‘rationalisation’ of non-valid application?

This is at the heart “in otherwise homogeneous data“, which gave the Call-centre a ‘ding-dong’, yet I feel that overall numbers could have shown the issue as well. Too many issues do not hold water here, yet the end of the article gives us what matters “Benford’s Law isn’t a magic bullet. It’s only one approach. It isn’t appropriate for all data sets. And when it is a good tool for the job, it simply identifies anomalies in data, which must be explained with further investigation“, ah the common sense. That did not take long did it?

So as there are serious options for investigating Fraud, the watchers of Tesco are still not in the limelight of the press, they have been given the ‘shade’ by the press at large. In one moment we see Tesco getting replaced by DeLoitte and recently we see Santander bank replacing DeLoitte for PwC and the SFO is nowhere to be seen. So are the Elves of Statistics and the Serious ‘eff’ Ogres in a state of non-war? Perhaps the SFO is too busy and whilst those auditors give new presentations on those yummy statistics, but as I personally see it, it is basically another presentation to lull groups of people to sleep. There is a mess in front of the people and those who should look and act, seem to be too busy and many can slightly fall asleep again.

Just 6 weeks ago, the UK got the message ‘RBS, once the world’s largest bank, is using analytics technology to go back to the era of personal customer service‘, with a promise to invest £100m in data analytics technology. I personally believe in analytics, it is a great tool, but in light of many factors, unless you get the people who have been consistently under-called them a job with a competitor bank, the institution will be paying a lot by those currently not doing their job right.

That final statement can be easily proven.

In the first, if data analytics was key, those involved should have known this for well over 3 years, some in charge have been there long enough, which means that no action was taken and they should not be in a position where they remain idle.

In the second, if data analytics is not key in solving some of the matters, why are they buying it? It could be for very valid other reasons, but that does not solve the ‘under-calling’ issue, it does not solve several other issues, even though it solves some, so at best, data analytics will diminish losses, which is good, but should we not get rid of the dead weight (read significant reasons for large losses).

All this comes to blows soon enough, because if the RBS does not get its results, new articles will appear all over the place regarding ‘miscommunication’, times of deployment and infrastructure issues, in the meantime ‘managed bad news’ prevails and more waves of issues will be swept under the covers of a dark carpet. As accounts are handed over between the 4 big auditors, the sum in the end gives us that overall none of them will make any serious losses. Slightly beyond the short term it evens out for the big four, which might be the largest miscarriage of justice of all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Uncategorized

Tagged as BBC, Benford, Benford’s Law, caltech, Data Analytics, Deloitte, Financial Times, PwC, RBS, Royal Bank of Scotland, SFO, Sir Philip Hampton, Tesco, Wall Street Journal

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives