Category Archives: Law

April 23, 2015 · 05:50

The Sound of silence

Hello accountant, my dark fate
your books are bloated as of late
the need for bonus loudly creeping
to be deposited so fleeting
and the greedy that are filling
their domain, they always gain
it is the need for money

The P W C accounting firm
will gain support, another turn
you see the press is staying quiet
we wonder now who got them hired
see the news is remaining just the same, it’s such a shame
and they should all be fired

You might think why this rewritten song of Simon and Garfunkel? You see, it has been almost 50 years exactly that Simon and Garfunkel took this to paper, 50 years later we would see quite the different ballad, one that would see repercussions in ways never seen before, yet both instances unique. That part was made clear today when we see ‘Tesco posts record loss: what the experts say‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/22/tesco-posts-record-loss-what-the-experts-say). So when we see “Tesco reports record £6.4bn loss” and when we see ‘these experts’, you and me alike should ask a series of questions the press is not asking. It has not been asking them for 2 quarters now (well an absolute minimum).

Consider the following quote: “Soon after his arrival, Lewis unveiled a £263m accounting scandal caused by overoptimistic recording of payments made to Tesco by suppliers. Tesco is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office and the supermarket regulator over the affair“, this is what got it all started, what the publishing pussies refer to as ‘overoptimistic recording of payments‘ turned out to be nothing less than a systematic issue as we saw some of the news from DeLoitte. It is shown in my ‘adjusted lyrics’:

Will gain support, another turn
you see the press is staying quiet
we wonder now who got them hired

You see, there is the Sound of Silence, an actual silence. Try finding anything regarding Tesco in 2015 regarding PricewaterhouseCoopers. You will find very very little, pretty much the absolute minimum. Perhaps you remember the wild allegations on the ‘MH370 suicide flight‘, in addition, all those claims regarding the World Cup soccer in Qatar 2022. Yet, in regards to PwC the Murdoch machine stays very quiet. I regard that this makes Rupert Murdoch the biggest pussy in newspaper publication since the newspaper concept started in the 17th century.

It took just less than two hours to realise that PwC needed investigation, the papers made close to zero mention on it, there were some casual mentions regarding ‘asking questions’, but it was as low key as technologically possible. In December 2014 it pretty much stops, feel free to try and Google it for yourself. You will find articles on how Sainsbury switches from PwC to Ernst and Young (January 16^th 2015), but for the rest there is too much nothing. Not just the Murdoch groups, but in equal measure, you will find little to nothing regarding PricewaterhouseCoopers. Is that not strange? Especially as we now see how £263m inflation, caused a £6.4bn deflation. A result 24:1, it became such an interesting long term bet to make, especially by those involved. Yet many of those players are shrouded in silence.

You see another matter suddenly dawned on me. I reckon you all remember Julian Assange, from all those cables regarding the Afghan war. 5 days ago, they decided to also go public on all those Sony hacked cables. We see the quote: “This archive shows the inner workings of an influential multinational corporation. It is newsworthy and at the centre of a geopolitical conflict. It belongs in the public domain“. No Mr Assange! You decided to play god with stolen data and you decided the fate of this corporation by hanging out the laundry, in addition, you handed the power they wielded and threw it up in the air to be taken over by any competitor who can grow in directions they never bothered to look, because they could not be bothered taking the effort.

And as we are talking into the public domain Julian, what happened to your ‘bravery’ when you made the quote “In November, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Forbes the site has a ‘mega leak’ on an unnamed major US bank exposing an ‘ecosystem of corruption’ that will be released early this year?” I am pretty sure that this never went public. I searched high and low and your WikiLeaks page shows nothing there either. It seems to me that many parties are too scared when it comes to banks and financial institutions.

The question should be Did Julian Assange have anything ever regarding his claims on an ‘ecosystem of corruption’ in regards to a US bank. Should I not ask that question? You see, when the press at large ignores the PwC issue, many should ask questions, especially as both Tesco and Greece fill pages of text in the Guardian and several other newspapers, yet the hunt for information regarding PwC is not moving forward.

In the first article mentioned, where we see the dubious term ‘what the experts say’, NO MENTION AT ALL on PricewaterhouseCoopers (or PwC), is that not strange? The question how 10 million in costs (which I converted to 199 full time accountants working on Tesco for a full year alone) did not reveal anything in time, so how could such a managed event stay hidden? In several articles we see a similar quote as I am adding here, a quote that in many cases was the very first paragraph of articles late October 2013. “DELOITTE has completed its review of Tesco’s overstated half-yearly results and confirmed that its black hole is even bigger than the £250m previously declared and goes back even further than the supermarket group had originally stated“, which means that these auditors ‘missed’ it for a longer period of time. A thought I had in the first few hours, was confirmed a month later (which is fair enough, they hard to check many numbers before stating anything), yet I saw and reported on this (as well as my thoughts), having no economic degree, just me as an analyst saw what the press has been ignoring ever since.

One of the more revealing articles was in the Financial Times named ‘UK accountancy watchdog hits PwC with two separate probes‘ (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98e02452-89c8-11e4-9dbf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Y3cymr54), which was in late December 2014, after that the news and the hunt for the Priced and watered Coopers stops on nearly all media fronts. I wonder how they pulled that one of. The fact that there is almost no visibility on the two probes is only more cause for concern, but those experts all have ‘something’ to say in this matter. Isn’t it nice that they did not have anything to say, or did not say it out loud before the calamity was seen. All those Tesco projects, ready to roll, not one came with the considerations ‘Tesco is spreading itself too thin‘, which is nice before the fact, but pointless, bordering on clueless after the fact. I especially liked the quote from Mike Dennis from Cantor Fitzgerald, you know, one of those after the facts proclaimers. “We believe Tesco should consider closing 200 underperforming supermarkets/superstores and focus on growing the more profitable remaining 700 stores (excluding Express); in addition, this should also allow for £40m of cost-savings from the closure of a distribution centre“, you see, my issue is twofold.

The first is where the ‘under’ performing line lies. Is underperforming, working at a loss, or at a minimal profit? The reality remains that people need groceries, so if an ‘underperforming’ shop is closed another will open with a different label and now that lost revenue will go somewhere else. My second issue is that 40 million in savings. You see, if those 200 shops are spread all over, that distribution centre will still be needed, even if the amount of stores decreases, someone will need to open a grocery store and this distribution centre could service independent supermarkets to some degree, meaning a small additional revenue. Then we get the second set of debatable solutions “Matt Davies, Tesco’s UK CEO as of 1 June, should consider a further reduction in staff and a significant simplification of central functions and category management. Aldi UK today generates twice the sales per full-time employee compared to Tesco UK and is expected to report higher trading profits“, reduction on staff? Where? You see, it is nice to ‘opt’ for simplification, but in my experience in 100% of the cases, simplification was not a bad thing, but it came at some expense, what is that expense and will it hurt down the line? The biggest fun can be seen when you read the part of Philip Benton. It all reads nice, but the issue I have is at the end in this case. “The retailer is in the midst of a huge restructuring after selling off much of its portfolio including Blinkbox and Tesco Broadband as well as the forthcoming sale of market research unit Dunnhumby and undergoing a complete overhaul of its leadership“, my issue is the possible ‘inflated’ that Dunnhumby represents. You see, it could be regarded as inflated as its value is determined by what the buyers will offer. In the end Dunnhumby represents well over 140 million a year and it also represents undocumented savings. You see, if a lot of the marketing and visibility research is done at market value, Tesco will face that they either deal with additional costs (not small ones) or not do the research. Both are bad ideas. None of these ‘experts’ are looking into the amalgamation of services that Dunnhumby could offer via Tesco and/or for Tesco. Dunnhumby is a massive data warehouse and it should have loads of options. Moreover offering these additional services (in the trend that Google has done with ‘Gmail for work’ could open up new capital gaining opportunities. Now, as the economy is slowly starting over the next 3 years, those who grow could need data insight that is currently available via Dunnhumby. This means financial and revenue growth that shows a healthy future, giving that away in some sale to recoup 2 billion, from a 6 billion loss that was all based upon degraded value seems like a very bad idea to me. Even if most of that 2 billion is recovered, the invoices that follow will put pressure for a larger part on Tesco.

Consider that the interest on 2 billion is 70,000,000, now consider that not only are them making 100 million plus, they are also the centre of data, a place Tesco will desperately need in the coming 2-5 years. Not having it could imply more costings for Tesco. No one seemed to be considering that part of the equation at all.

So, reality now, will stores be closed? That seems unavoidable, yet closing stores also means no more revenue, dumping the location at a loss and a few other items linked to this. Tesco needs to grow again, but the method remains debatable. I would have thought that moving more towards an Aldi/Lidl margin might make a difference, will it be enough? Whatever move it will make, it will need data to support and test the foundations with, so I personally feel that this requires the non-sale of Dunnhumby (for now). You see, I still see the centre with Dunnhumby for another reason. When you look at their site, you see a list of the large corporations, that is all good (and it brings home the bacon), but they are also sitting on loads of Tesco data as well. What if aggregated parts could be linked to small firms, smaller firms who end up with a dashboard solution, where their limited data is linked to that massive Tesco Data Warehouse, where these smaller companies, for a small fee get a dashboard uniting their data with Tesco demographics. Now we have a whole new clientele in a business setting, so before those supermarkets get closed, they should see if a small corner of it could be an added business venture. Likely those prospective clients will be in larger area’s where Tesco remains operational, but we now have an added service and Dunnhumby has an optional new suite (based on for example SAP dashboard) that opens up new ventures and even added consultancy and training. In these times the innovators will cause growth to evolve, selling off things only makes for lost market share (even though some non-profit ventures should always be considered for scrapping).

Are my ideas so outlandish? You must always consider that part, for the simple reason that the sceptical approach causes no harm and the proof that follows will only create futures. The following quote is as old as the hills, so it should not be a surprise to anyone in this field: “Sales will blame Marketing for the lack of quality leads with repetitive precision, whilst Marketing will blame Sales for not acting on the leads on time, or at all. When nobody has any reliable stats to back up their ‘verdict’, the arguments go on forever and nothing gets done”. Now, consider all these new firms, those new start-ups, or just one man companies like for example Electricians, Plumbers and Painters. They have no Sales or Marketing at all in most cases, would it not be nice if they had a simple dashboard based option that can help them focus on where possible opportunities lie? Not to mention usual retail like family bookshops and leagues of small pharmacy places that could do better. The solution I suggested could help them focus on where to look next. The great thing is that for the most, the same basic solution will work for all, they would only need a set of very specific filters in addition to the demographical ones. A solution that could be automated to the larger extent. One simple market, there for the taking. Did anyone consider that?

And as we look into these possibilities, we get back to the beginning, how could all the financial data be so opaque that it escaped the view of PwC, when we look at all these claims by experts, how did none of the warning lights light up, especially when we consider the words of Deloitte “these auditors ‘missed’ it for a longer period of time“, now I have brought you from the premise, past the innuendo to the basic view on how data can be new business too. Finally, when we consider the following quote that was in the Guardian “Further positives include that Tesco did in fact make a bigger trading profit than the market believed was possible (£1.4bn v. £760.86m consensus)“, this reads, they did twice as good, this means that Tesco is getting back on its feet. Yes, I did read that it is less than it was, but still, they got one dot four billion in, which is a lot better than Greece and most traders want them to get 7 billion regardless, so I think we should consider that many are willing to dump 7 billion on a location of non-cooperation, whilst they will drown a corporation fight to achieve and collect ACTUAL revenue. What a double standard we live by!

If we go by the simplest stats (not an accurate one), then we see that Tesco exceeded by £700M, which is 23% of the £3 billion loss, Greece cannot even raise 10% of what is due shortly, so it is time to look at what is real and look at why the press seems to be ‘avoiding’ (read not actively digging) into Pricewaterhouse Cooper either. But I will leave that to what I would currently regard to be the ‘Pussy’ family (Witherow, Rusbridger, Murdoch et al). Should you consider the path I walked here to be ‘inappropriate’ then Google ‘Tesco+scandal+2015‘ (837.000) and Google ‘PwC+scandal+2015‘ (271.000), now look at the amount of Newspaper links we find in the second one (almost none and many of these links are 2014). I think I made my case here, I just wonder what scared the press to this extent away from a story.

So as we see the quotes “Over the full year, the profit margin in the UK was 1.1%, a far cry from the impossible 5.2% that Lewis’s predecessor, Philip Clarke, ridiculously attempted to defend” and “Lewis must show that the ‘early encouraging signs from what we have done so far’ will produce a discernible improvement in profits“, yet no mention on the previous directors, regarding ‘cooking’ the books and still no mention of the Auditor either. It seems that everyone knows that the dice are loaded but no one is willing to say it out loud.

What else is not reported on regarding the 24:1 loss?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Aldi, Dave Lewis, Deloitte, Dunnhumby, Ernst and Young, Gmail for work, Greece, Julian Assange, Murdoch, Philip Benton, Philip Clarke, PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, Qatar 2022, Rupert Murdoch, Rusbridger, Sainsbury, Simon and Garfunkel, Sony hacked cables, Tesco, WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Witherow

April 14, 2015 · 17:49

What’s wrong with Americans?

I got drawn in into a graphic video, which came from a dashcam. One source is http://ktla.com/2015/04/11/christian-family-band-members-in-deadly-parking-lot-brawl-police-say/, the other one is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEnuSVQe8E4.

The two sources, especially the second one, which shows a very disturbing event.

The event starts at 00:29. The officer states ‘We need to separate these folks and talk to them’, the emphases was very very clear, namely ‘talk to them’. At this point there are around 5 police officers and 8 civilians. Within three seconds the civilians start a fight. What is wrong with these Americans? As far as I could see, there was an issue, the police wants to clear up and learn what exactly the issue is. Within 20 seconds we have civilians fighting each other, two civilians jumping a police officer. This goes on for a little while. At 1:20 there is clear view that police officers are still trying to break up the fight as best as they can. At 1:30 if I see it correct, one Taser has been discharged. It is a scuffle and one voice starts screaming: “Stop being Nazi’s!” As I see it, there are no Nazi’s, just police officers in a bad situation, trying to stop the escalation as much as they can. At 1:55 we hear “You’re hitting children“. Well that is not quite correct was it? These civilians had a beef and would not restrain themselves to talking and violence erupted. Violence against the police who are up to this point showing restraint as far as possible. At 3:00 the police has had enough, now the threatening command ‘get down’ is issued. One policeman is on the floor dealing with (not really clear) two civilians. At 3:20 a shot is fired. Now the screaming starts ‘oh my god’, ‘oh my god’. The police continues the command ‘everybody down’. It is almost like they are dealing with a group of severely mentally unhinged individuals. They refuse clear directives that were given by police officers.

Now, when we consider the title that KTLA gives us, ‘Christian Family Band Members in Deadly Arizona Parking Lot Brawl, Police Say‘, many might wonder what came over the police initially, but the KTLA news as well as the dashcam gives us another picture, one that gives pause to the question, how come there are so little instances of police escalations. KTLA reported in addition the part that the videos would not have shown: “Officers wanted to question them about the alleged assault of a Walmart employee who was going into the store bathroom“, so there was a response to violence, the civilians escalated it even further and ‘Enoch Gaver, 21, was killed in the fight‘.

A death that his family members could have prevented from the very beginning by listening to the clear instructions. Ignoring them caused a fatality 170 seconds later. A fatality they themselves instigated.

So what is wrong with Americans?

Now, this generalisation sounds extremely unfair to the rest of the Americans, but there is a larger issue that goes beyond Ferguson. When we see clear biased filming and we see sources like http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/police-reasonable-force-brutality-race-research-review-statistics, many non-Americans wonder just how bad the police there is, yet this video clearly showed restraint by the police (as much as possible) and the danger the police faces (as one officer was injured in the process).

The linked article shows something a lot more important and more unsettling. The view comes from FBI Director James B. Comey. As he sees it there is no reliable grasp of the problem. This view is supported with the following statement: “Not long after riots broke out in Ferguson late last summer, I asked my staff to tell me how many people shot by police were African-American in this country. I wanted to see trends. I wanted to see information. They couldn’t give it to me, and it wasn’t their fault. Demographic data regarding officer-involved shootings is not consistently reported to us through our Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Because reporting is voluntary, our data is incomplete and therefore, in the aggregate, unreliable“, which ponders the question, why? In my view the voluntary nature of the UCRP data is centre in all this. I cannot go into that reasoning because I do not have insight in the system and infrastructure that relates to all this, but one of the oldest credence’s we know in regards to statistics is ‘to measure is to know‘, which cannot be maintained from a voluntary point of view. “I recently listened to a thoughtful big city police chief express his frustration with that lack of reliable data. He said he didn’t know whether the Ferguson police shot one person a week, one a year, or one a century, and that in the absence of good data, “all we get are ideological thunderbolts, when what we need are ideological agnostics who use information to try to solve problems.” He’s right“. The statement can be accepted as valid, but in my view it is not entirely correct. My reasoning here is that several parties in all this are frustrated, but the voluntary nature of reporting has not (at present) changed, why not? Is the first solution to an unknown to gather the data that illuminates a road to solutions? Why is the infrastructure and nature of the UCRP not addressed? There might be a valid reason for this, but as stated, I know too little regarding the UCRP, its mandate and its responsibilities. We can however agree that reporting is centre in finding or managing a road to a solution, or to a better situation, which is a path not trodden at present.

My question gains additional weight as we see “Without a doubt, training for police has become more standardized and professionalized in recent decades. A 2008 paper in the Northwestern University Law Review provides useful background on the evolving legal and policy history relating to the use of force by police and the “reasonableness” standard by which officers are judged. Related jurisprudence is still being defined, most recently in the 2007 Scott v. Harris decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. But inadequate data and reporting — and the challenge of uniformly defining excessive versus justified force — make objective understanding of trends difficult”

You see Scott v. Harris is well over half a decade old and that case shows the need for clarity, not just in data, but in insight. It is not just the dissenting voice of Justice Stevens in this matter. His view “Justice Stevens’s lone dissent argued that the videotape was not as definitive as the majority made it out to be and that a jury should make the determination on the justifiability of deadly force“, but if the judgment comes from a jury of peers, who would be the peer? A jury of police officers who know and almost daily see the consequences of hazardous driving, or a jury of civilians who could feel that the police should never have intervened with the criminal act of speeding? Like Enoch Gaver, Victor Harris learned the hard way what the consequences are of not obeying a clear directive from a police officer. A directive that was given in response to a crime that was being committed at that time. The cases have similarities in cause and effect.

What I personally see to be a factor is one that is not mentioned and might be ignored by many players, including FBI Director James B. Comey. The escalation that come from the disobedience from the alleged criminals. As the situation could not be diffused, the alleged factor is diminished into multiple criminal acts that were direct, instantly and almost undeniable. That part is clearly seen in the Walmart case. So if we consider the factor ‘escalation through disobedience‘, which is a lot more likely to evolve into acts of “justifiable homicide” by law enforcement officers, then the shifted statistics could show that certain events require a different mentality, not by the police, but by the population at large. For if we see evidence that clearly implies that certain statistics might no longer be valid (read: correct). That is seen in the quote “an estimated 1.7% of all contacts result in police threats or use of force, while 20% of arrests do“. The mere act of disobedience, or better stated ‘intentionally resisting arrest’, which is not just a crime, it is also a clear factor that results in fatalities. If that can somehow be addressed then a possible move towards clarity and less fatalities could become a reality. The question becomes, how to best go about it. I reckon it requires a person more intelligent than me to resolve or address it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as Arizona, Enoch Gaver, Ferguson, James B. Comey, journalistsresource.org, Justice Stevens, KTLA, Northwestern University, police officers, Scott v. Harris, Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Victor Harris

April 11, 2015 · 09:53

Liber Calvariam

Of all the techie things we know, many, even most non-techies, they all have their view on Facebook. I am no different in that case. I have made in the past several cases where I question the actions of Facebook, the choices they made and the things their users agree upon. I have in the past always tempered that to some extent because, I think that there is no such thing as a ‘free service’, there is always a price to pay and that price is not always ‘expressed’ in coin or currency.

The first article in this was in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-tracks-all-visitors-breaching-eu-law-report), it was published on March 31st and the title is of course pretty upsetting, namely “Facebook ‘tracks all visitors, breaching EU law’“, now the title is already reason for debate, but I will get to that shortly. The quote that is part in this is: “People without Facebook accounts, logged out users, and EU users who have explicitly opted out of tracking are all being tracked, report says“. This links to a story that was published on February 23rd. That link is important, as that story links to two articles. The first one (at http://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/en/news/item/icri-cir-advises-belgian-privacy-commission-in-facebook-investigation), has links to full reports and states: “Facebook’s default settings related to behavioural profiling or Social Ads, for example, are particularly problematic. Moreover, users are offered no choice whatsoever with regard to their appearance in “Sponsored Stories” or the sharing of location data“, I have experienced part of this myself, even now, at times, it still takes a moment to figure out what settings are where and I am very tech savvy. More important, the second link to the full Facebook PDF article was not found, a little sloppy I must say. There is no way to tell whether this flaw was because of actions from the University of Leuven, or from the Guardian.

My issue follows from “EU privacy law states that prior consent must be given before issuing a cookie or performing tracking, unless it is necessary for either the networking required to connect to the service (“criterion A”) or to deliver a service specifically requested by the user (“criterion B”)” as well as “A cookie is a small file placed on a user’s computer by a website that stores settings, previous activities and other small amounts of information needed by the site. They are sent to the site on each visit and can therefore be used to identify a user’s computer and track their movements across the web“, by themselves they seem innocent enough, but when we consider the implications, we get ‘identify a user’s computer‘ and ‘track their movements across the web‘, now we get the issue, so how deep goes this identification and how much tracking is done, just your actions whilst on Facebook or EVERYTHING you do on the web and where you do it? That last part becomes an issue when we consider that we use Facebook on our mobiles. There is an issue that is implied, but not correctly and completely addressed by the Guardian (as well as many other papers).

Yet, the information the article gives as brought by ‘Article 29‘ gives us: “The Article 29 working party has also said that cookies set for “security purposes” can only fall under the consent exemptions if they are essential for a service explicitly requested by the user – not general security of the service“. I do not completely agree with that statement. Their statement is not wrong, but consider the mobile user, the user is a device in motion, whilst at the same time could be engaging with data in motion, two very different concepts, and whilst the cookie is not meant to be for both, it will include both, which could be regarded as an exemption. You see, when you move, from tower X to tower Y, either as Pede Strian, or as the Vehicular Mover, we will need explicit security, not just general security. Their statement has merit from a desktop, but it now becomes a question, whether the mobile or the desktop user is now the majority here. In addition, I have not even adjusted this view for those connected through ‘free Wi-Fi‘ a dubious concept for sure, one where security needs to be a lot more defining. In my personal view there is a clear need for an exemption, which I would quote as “the consent exemption, essential for the secure use of a service explicitly required for the mobile user“. That does not take away the need to address issues involving the advertised purpose of sponsored visibility, which is a fair enough issue, but let’s face it, Facebook is offered for ‘free’, those sponsored moments are the ‘price’ we get to pay and I for one agree with the not like, but I understand that the cost of running Facebook hardware is not that cheap in the end.

Now we get to the ‘actual issue’. The one that was brought on April 10^th (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/10/facebook-admits-it-tracks-non-users-but-denies-claims-it-breaches-eu-privacy-law). The issue is not just the quote “Facebook has admitted that it tracked users who do not have an account with the social network, but says that the tracking only happened because of a bug that is now being fixed“, because, as I see it, this issue has been around at least 8 weeks, and if we accept that the issue was already in play before the University of Leuven came with the (unread) paper and their version of evidence, than we can postulate that this issue had been going on for months. In this Facebook is not innocent, because, if Facebook is set up properly by its administrators, then the system had been collecting parsed data which should have been linked to certain flags. The fact that data was collected ‘unchecked’ gives us pause to question the system as designed, or we accept that Facebook exploited a bug to their own ends. Neither could be seen as illegal, for the mere reason that the evidence linking it all to ‘intent’ could not be proven as I see it. Even if a legal party had access to the entire system, the premise of intent might not ever be proven.

A bigger issue is the quote from Richard Allan “The researchers did find a bug that may have sent cookies to some people when they weren’t on Facebook. This was not our intention – a fix for this is already under way“, you see, a cookie is sent (under normal conditions) when a user action warrants it. They log in, they go to a certain page or they use an app, or location, where they are linked to a Facebook account (for example, we place a comment on the Guardian page (to just mention an option) and we sign in using our Facebook account. In those cases the cookie seems valid to me, yet is that part of the ‘when they weren’t on Facebook‘ part? If not, then it is not just a bug, it seems to me that there is an unchecked balance of server based flags that are triggered by any instance whilst the user is not connected, which is not just a bug, it is a systematic flaw of the Facebook system, but is that the actual case here?

Another issue I have is with the quote from Brendan Van Alsenoy, a researcher at ICRI. Here we see: “European legislation is really quite clear on this point. To be legally valid, an individual’s consent towards online behavioural advertising must be opt-in” that quote might be correct, but is that not part of the user agreement from Facebook, they by creating the account are opting in? In addition, we get a truckload of these opting in moments as we accept the usage of an app within Facebook. So are these not explicit opt-in moments?

I still have issues with something that was on the Wall Street Journal in August 2014 (at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/08/facebook-messenger-privacy-fears-heres-what-you-need-to-know/). You see, I had similar issues, but guess what, suddenly within days all news on this issue just stopped and no one followed up or gave a clear picture on why certain rights were there. I think it would be distressing to people when they agree to “call phone numbers without your intervention,” and “use the camera at any time without your permission”, two of at least half a dozen questionable rights we signed over. My issue was with the part ‘without your permission‘, which is an issue to say the least. Yes, I agree that it could be just an android phrase, but none of these rights or messages ever popped up on Google plus or any other Google option I use, so is it just me?

In the end we love bashing a big boy like IBM, Microsoft or Facebook, but let’s be fair about it all and that is only possible if we get a clear article on the subject, it seems to me that the articles of late do not paint a clear picture, it just sketches events and acting on these partial sketches is not a good thing, or fair towards Facebook.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as Article 29, Brendan Van Alsenoy, Facebook, IBM, ICRI, Microsoft, Richard Allan, the Guardian, University of Leuven, Wall Street Journal

April 3, 2015 · 11:42

Why do we bother?

This article is not for the faint of heart, or for those who ‘believe’ in equal rights. This piece is as misogynistic as it gets, for the simple reason that being nice, being considerate sounds like an idea, but in the end, it seems to me that

No one cares
The prosecuting side of the law at large seems to be ill equipped.

What brought this on?

It’s been going on for a little while. Usually in the form of these ‘innocuous’ advertisements through Facebook linked pages and other sourced forms of mass marketing.

You might have seen them, pictures of photo shopped women, ready and posing to be ‘coitussed’, with added statement like ‘Male Gamers Only‘ (EDGE, by UDM), an advertisement for a game called Wartune, with the ‘warning’ Adult content! It is all promoted by a site called ‘utterlypettable.com’ (one of several places), in this case regarding the 21 most deadly animals. So can anyone explain how a transgression on sexual discrimination is not being prosecuted? Because they are just ‘facilitators’?

It seems to me that those facilitating mass advertising have a lot to explain for. To just get through and to just get the revenue in, they will overlook many issues. Of course these pages are usually linked to advertisements like ‘Hurry before this video is banned‘ and ‘Rich people Do Everything To Ban This‘. I normally ignore them all, but in this light, I decided to take a gander on the idiotic side, which now links to ‘Free money’ sites with additional spamming scripts. The fact that pressing the button to close that window steals the act and forces you to submenus only give way to the dangers that these places present. You see, if they were all on the up and up, they would not resort to these tactics and closing the window would not be hijacked. A world limited to Hijacking and Misogyny. It all goes even further when we consider the damage Facebook is handing out (from https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26915213/stop-being-selfish-outrage-over-anti-c-section-facebook-page/). This shows us A Facebook page criticising women who have given birth by caesarean section. How is this ‘freedom’ of speech? So as we see the reasoning for this need, which is “A Caesarean section is often performed when a vaginal delivery would put the baby’s or mother’s life or health at risk“, we should ask how we can condone ‘freedom’ of speech, attacking people for diminishing a person’s health, in this case both mother and baby. Yes, there is a growing concern that more women ask for it and not always is there a health danger, but that is between the upcoming mother and her physician as I see it. My question becomes, the ‘offender’ known as the Disciples of the New Dawn, how many of them are man and what percentage of this group is female?

At this point I must also illustrate that this is not a new issue. The guardian had an opinion piece in May 2013 (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/facebook-violently-sexist-pages-twitter-fbrape) called ‘Facebook’s violently sexist pages are an opportunity for feminists’, directly stated, not only do I disagree, these pages are a lot more dangerous than both genders realise. When we see eBay pages, selling T-Shirts stating ‘I’m feeling rapey’ we can honestly state that there are massive issues. The 2013 offensive T-shirt “Keep Calm and Rape A Lot” being the clearest of these transgressions. The article explained on how the automated phrase was in the hands of ‘Solid Gold Bomb’ and as they stated ‘these shirts were computer-generated and we didn’t even know we had a shirt that says that‘. The article does not touch on the part on how the phrases were collected, if we take the logic on the event that the act required someone to type it in, it would take thousands of people to type the phrase to get detected by these algorithms, which means that there is a larger problem hidden behind the issue which was not addressed by the press at large either.

This is partially seen in the UK where domestic Violence is at a massive high. At this point I want to mention an article I mentioned in the past (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/13/domestic-abuse-violence-victims-crime-survey-figures). Here we see ‘Domestic violence experienced by 30% of female population, survey shows‘, if this is anywhere near the truth, then tomorrow, when you get into the Underground and look at the women on route to their destination, then consider that over time it is likely that out of every 4 women you see, there is a small chance that one of them has not yet experienced abuse. Now ask yourself if you can live with that number, one out of four!

So when we see Jeri Ryan as the Female Borg, we can consider that being 7 of nine, that she could be one of 7 currently receiving domestic abuse. These are not nice statistics and the failing of the law is getting ever clearer and ever more unacceptable.

All this is propelled from the statement ‘Male Gamers Only‘, one of the most unacceptable calls for a game. I have played online many times, several friends on the multi-player Mass Effect 3 are women and they are quite good too! Games are a great channel, there we need to be part of the pack, part of the group and there the gender, age and religion has no bearing, only that you are part of the team, propelling victory for the entire group. The most unbiased of acts, to be together and just have a fun time. So when we see a T-Shirt stating “You provoked me” and “I was drunk“, we should worry on how this was regarded as ‘freedom of speech’. When we see the dreadful statistics of domestic violence, those ‘slogans’ have no place in this society and merely removing the page from eBay just does not cut it in my train of thought.

So when we see the quote “T-shirts that make a joke of rape are still available, of course, even on the biggest retailer of all, Amazon, but Laura Bates at Everyday Sexism has vowed to keep fighting to stop rape being regarded as a joke, rather than the violent crime it is“, we have to ask more than serious questions, we should ask whether a retailer like Amazon would be allowed to continue to cater to any Commonwealth nation. In my view, removing fields of revenue tends to be a great motivator to start being actually correct (in comparison to being ‘feigned politically correct’).

As stated, these events are not opportunities for feminists, they are just dangerous grounds for additional victims, which brings us to the second part of all this, the act of trivialisation. There are two kinds, there are at times trivialised moments when we have a vocal ‘spas’ with friends, we all say some things that are way outside the realm of politically correct. Men will giggle when we hear (as I did) the words of one woman saying to the other ‘No knickers? Laundry day or lunch with Mr Big?‘ (At Paddy’s market, Sydney). The mention is essential because it is a simple dialogue between two women I passed whilst looking for a polo shirt. Is objectification wrong when female friends do it among themselves? Was there objectification, or was ‘Mr Big’ about to get himself objectified over ‘lunch plus’. I feel unable to answer as there are too many unknown variables. Yet, linked to something I do know is the article ‘If you want to write about feminism online, be ready to take on the haters‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2015/apr/01/if-you-want-write-abaout-feminism-online-be-ready-to-eal-with-the-haters). You see, in my view, the photo is part of the issue. Three women wearing ‘no more page three‘ texts. I for one was never against page three (being a guy and all), but moreover, I always felt that those women used the Murdoch system to hopefully get ahead. Was that wrong? I do not know, but it was their choice to make, just like it is the right of these women to oppose page three. I mentioned the issue before. You see, when we see Keeley Hazell, who became known for working with charities, which include those working for animal rights and breast cancer awareness, we should wonder how bad the act was. There are not too many examples like these, so over 4 decades we can wonder on the numbers of good versus evil, but in my view, it is not about feminism, it is about the causes that matter. I am not convinced that page three led to domestic violence, but all this effort on a page in a paper that has been faltering versus the national issue that plays in more than one Commonwealth nation makes me wonder whether energy and effort are pushed into the right direction. There I have my questions and I am not convinced. The article does mention my feelings in a way when it raises the paragraph ‘There are more important issues to worry about’, which is exactly the issue I have. It is also for that reason that I am such a fan of the effort Emma Watson who is bringing us ‘HeForShe‘. I disagree with The Age (at http://www.theage.com.au/comment/emma-watson-speech-hardly-a-gamechanger-20140925-10lhz9.html), where Clementine Ford (a woman) is stating that it is hardly a game-changer. I disagree, As Hermione Granger she spoke to the imagination and reverence of an entire generation, a generation that now entered the real of young adult. A generation that consists of both man and women. She had an opportunity and she is forging a change from within this generation. That is not ‘hardly a game-changer’, this is huge and as far as I can tell, almost unique in our history, which makes it even bigger. There is a part I feel uneasy about. The quote “Gender inequality comes as a direct result of the enforcement of patriarchal structures. Although men are impacted negatively by it, they are not impacted in the same ways or to the same drastically violent extent as women“, is not wrong, but as I see it, it is incorrect. You see, a lot has changed, many changes that started in the last two decades are now coming to fruition. So as I see some women ‘whine’ about inequality (not judging right or wrong), I see that it is not wrongly seen, but wrongly shown in dimension. At University, now as I complete my Masters in Law, I see that the gender gap is no longer equal, I see that the man are now a minority, moreover, the people becoming partners and the higher echelons of law are slowly being replaced by women, who have completed the journey from legal aid to where they are now. This was not a simple task, these women excelled in law for a long time and now, those women get the positions. This is not a patriarch side, this is an evolving side. Now as the changes come over the next decade, women are more likely to be in charge in many fields, not because they are women, but because over time they had proven themselves to be equals. The second part of the article I disagree with is “Men have always been welcome to ‘participate in the conversation’, most notably when that participation involves action, change and acknowledgement of their own privilege and power“. That was (as I see it) never the case. I remember at VNU (Dutch publication house) that there was a guy who offered several pieces on promoting IT and IT skills for women. He literally got laughed out by those working at the Cosmopolitan editorial. So do not come to me with ‘welcome to participate’, because that was not the case. I am not making a judgment whether the act then was valid or not. Change took a long time and we are not there yet, but the wheel has turned and the acts of Emma Watson and women like her will be essential in propelling it all forward. So as we allow the issues of some advertisements, some T-shirts and on trivialised domestic violence, I wonder what fights still need to be fought.

So in the end, why do we bother?

Because within ourselves we acknowledge that moving forward requires equilibrium and equality, they are one and the same in our mental position and championing this position will end to be good for all. This is exactly why I am all for women in gaming. Not because they are women, but because I want a better game and it has been proven again and again that originality is found when new views are added to the table, in an age of mediocre sequels, originality is the essential ingredient. I look at it from the world of gaming, because I know this world the best, in IT it does not matter what gender the person is as long as there is skill and innovation. The result there is never seen in gender, if you doubt that, then list the names of all who worked on either Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel or Adobe Photoshop. There is the simplest shape of evidence. Here we do not care, who did it, as long as it works, the ultimate equaliser of gender.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Amazon, Clementine Ford, Commonwealth, Cosmopolitan, Disciples of the New Dawn, Edge, Emma Watson, Facebook, HeForShe, Jeri Ryan, Keeley Hazell, Laura Bates, Mass Effect 3, Misogyny, Page 3, Rupert Murdoch, Solid Gold Bomb, the Age, the Guardian, the Sun, UDM, utterlypettable.com, VNU, Wartune

April 2, 2015 · 23:35

As we seek options

There is a clear delight in looking a little longer at the Greek comedy that is about to become a tragedy, but I reckon that their loss is now a certainty to so many that the blogs and the news as it is released is no longer truly in the interest of many to watch.

Instead of that, it might be more interesting to take another look at what should be regarded as the shifting trend of danger as it hits on a global scale. It is an opinion piece by George Monbiot, which was published 3 days ago. The article called “‘Wealth creators’ are robbing our most productive people” (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/31/wealth-creators-klepto-rewards-bosses). George is touching on several issues I have written about and many have known for a long time. The following quotes are at the centre of the issue “A report by the Resolution Foundation reveals that two-thirds of frontline care workers receive less than the living wage. Ten percent, like Carole, are illegally paid less than the minimum wage. This abuse is not confined to the UK: in the US, 27% of care workers who make home visits are paid less than the legal minimum“. So here is number one. Mr President, your claims on healthcare for everyone, in this view, did you intentionally set it up to be affordable through the use of what might be regarded as slave labour? There are heaps of jokes involving slave labour and African Americans, but then, I am not sure how many of your involved advisers fit that bill. Yet, it is not about health care, it is only a factor in a larger scheme of things, so up to the next part. “As the pay gap widens – chief executives in the UK took 60 times as much as the average worker in the 1990s and 180 times as much today – the uselessness ratio is going through the roof I propose a name for this phenomenon: klepto-remuneration“, this is an interesting view. You see, ‘klepto’ implies what is ‘not theirs’, yet the system had been destabilised to maximise exploitation by those in charge. What George sees as ‘klepto-remuneration’, I see as unbalanced unaccountability. Because the board of directors has a clear responsibility, to ensure the future of the corporation that they are heading. It seems to me that these board members are doing whatever they can to fill their need for comfort. When people doubt that approach then take a look at the mediocre collection of bundled fiascos. Tesco, RBS, Northern Rock, Polly Peck and the list goes on for a decent time. The US is not innocent their either, it is a global problem.

The interesting part is that these events have been known for a long time and in some cases there was a change to the UK Corporate Governance Code and other laws, but overall the massive need for change to ensure (read: force) fairness to the corporations and the bleeding of revenue (read solvency) towards their own board of directors is nowhere near the changes that are required, which is shown on a near global scale. The issue will only increase over the next two years as we see mergers and therefor non-taxable solutions for certain moguls TEVA, Horizon Pharma and linked to this there is Deerfield. Yet, Deerfield has other options, so what will they do, will they drown their board into a group of massive commissions, or will they exploit their centre position and grow larger into the need to corner the pharma and generic patent market. Deerfield could grow its market from 4 to well over 11 billion if the right patents are acquired. So the question becomes, where is the cut-off point? When will we see the appropriate response of those boards, not for profit, but for opening markets and allow taxability to become a true value of restoring its government’s coffers, whether it be US or Commonwealth? Yet the proper laws to truly state the changes are not in place. The draconian shift would not just be unacceptable, it will result in a change that could choke a commerce, but the current unchecked options are equally non-working and equally devastating, all due to the lack of accountability, so how to change the setting?

I do not pretend to have the answer. I am not sure what the best course is to properly adjust the law, but as we saw in the article written by George, he had one final part I did not mention yet “There is no end to this theft except robust government intervention: a redistribution of wages through maximum ratios and enhanced taxation. But this won’t happen until we challenge the infrastructure of justification, built so carefully by politicians and the press. Our lives are damaged not by the undeserving poor but by the undeserving rich“, you see, here I slightly disagree, not with his statement, which is fair enough, but in this view ‘a redistribution of wages through maximum ratios and enhanced taxation‘, will never be a proper long term solution, it is a flim flam approach to a non-working premise. It is like the additional taxation of the rich, now consider that this money comes from less than 10,000 people, how can we see a redistribution on fairness, whilst only a small part of these rich are undeservingly so? If we cannot bolster their move, or tax their efforts, the only part remaining is to limit their actions. I had seen several moves in the past, which are still ignored by nations (and their taxation offices at large). I reckon that corporations are unwilling to receive taxation, in addition, several tax sheltering governments (Ireland & Netherlands) are unwilling to let go of the little advantage they have, but it is that unwilling part that is hurting all.

Laws to ‘maximise’ industrialisation have become anchors, minimising wellbeing, none of these elements are dealt with by ‘enhanced taxation’. It can be achieved by removing tax write offs. What if there is no longer a benefit for merging? What if Teva Pharma (TEVA) was not allowed to Acquire Auspex Pharma unless there is full taxability? So no tax write-off, no benefit for either. Why give tax breaks to companies making millions/billions? In addition, some of these mergers are done to allow for some patents to be prolonged. I believe in patents, I truly do, but I also believe in an end date of that exclusivity, so that the innovators of generic solutions can make a product that is affordable for all, solving more than one issue in one go.

Was that so hard to begin with? The solution providers only had to let go of a little greed!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as Auspex Pharma, Deerfield, George Monbiot, Health care, Hedge Funds, Horizon Pharma, Minimum wage, Northern Rock, Patents, Polly Peck, RBS, slave labour, Tesco, TEVA, Teva Pharma, the Guardian, UK, UK Corporate Governance Code, US

March 16, 2015 · 01:10

In fear of the future

As elections draw near, we see an everlasting image of what was, what could be and what is. The last of the issues is then rejected in two directions. As the Tories will go from what is into what could be, we will see labour into the mesh of what was and what did not happen. They are elements we saw coming a mile away (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/14/osborne-budget-speech-economy-growth-deficit).

War is constant!
The political face of warfare never changes!

Both true, both unconditionally an issue in this day and age.

You see, the one trillion in debt is bogging down the UK and the Commonwealth as a whole. We need to bring it down, yet when we see the more likely response as it is given in the Guardian: “Deficit reduction has been much slower than Osborne forecast five years ago. In his first budget, in June 2010, the chancellor predicted that he would need to borrow £37bn in 2014-5” and “that tax receipts would cover day-to-day government spending. The actual figure will be almost three times that“. Both are right, both are staring down the wrong rabbit hole! If we accept the generic statement that the UK faces a £43 billion interest bill every year, which is more than the spending of Defence, are we catching on? Bankers end up with a 43 billion payout, which is certain money, no risk and all very much fuelling a banking bonus. The interest is just a little shy of 50% of the allowance for Education. Getting rid of the debt must remain the highest priority. Apart from most of us regarding the interest bill as an issue, it is nothing compared to what happens if the budget is not properly managed. Yes, it sounds so nice that we see the quote “Vince Cable has warned that George Osborne has no room in next Wednesday’s budget for a substantial pre-election giveaway, but acknowledged that there was some headroom in the public finances for modest tax cuts or an increase in public spending” (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/13/vince-cable-osborne-budget-no-room-pre-election-bonanza), but regard the Guardian image (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/mar/21/budget-2014-tax-spending-visualised#img-1). Here we see that borrowing was still needed, at the amount of £84 billion, which means that the debt is not diminishing. At the same time, the Eurozone decided to go on a one trillion spending spree, which will hit the UK (as part of the EU) sooner rather than later, which is part of the problem too, because these spending sprees are only working for a drive of the people towards Ukip. To be honest, I am not sure if the premise has changed. I remained on the fence considering that leaving the EEC was too dangerous, but as we see irresponsibility and non-accountability (the sad comedy of a threesome involving a Greek, a credit card and a banker) is now fuelling a stronger drive towards Ukip, Whilst political Europe is wording bad management clauses and whilst they have no real solution, we see deeper dive into debt. The UK MUST AT ALL COST prevent this nightmare. It seems all too clear that Germany is now also ready to leave the Eurozone. Perhaps not the politicians in an outspoken way, but the German people seem to have had enough. Of all the crazy rock bands that Europe has, the Greek one, with at the microphone Alexis Tsipras, the drums are played by Panos Kammenos and as ever in style of Greek theatrics, the Bass is played by Yanis Varoufakis. The name of this band is Aite and it remains to be seen how long the band will remain in existence. You see, instead of addressing failures, the players of this band entered the blame game. A game played by many, yet always only illustrating their own lack of commitment.

In that we see a link to the UK, the UK, its MP’s and those in charge with a title of that what is (like Chancellor of the Exchequer), this person cannot relax, because if it was needed to borrow £84 billion, that means that the words of Vince Cable were poorly chosen, because there was never any headroom. Even if there had been no borrowing, the headroom was not there, the debt must go down, the faster it goes down, the better everyone will feel and the more the government can do for the People of the United Kingdom.

It is just that simple and yes, we will all feel the pain for many more years, because previous governments had not taken control of its spending. Now that the invoice is way past due, the bulk of politicians are all about pushing it forward about pushing away that what should have been dealt with by a responsible person (read a person elected into office). The Tories are trying to get that done and they have also faced backlashes and setbacks. No one can deny that, but the debt must be dealt with.

The issue is seen here: “The Lib Dems have been pressing for a further rise in the £10,000 a year personal tax allowance – the sum before which any income tax is paid – in an effort to press home his party’s ownership of the single biggest tax reform of the parliament. The allowance is already projected to rise to £10,600 from April. Every £100 annual increase in the personal allowance costs £500m. The alternative will be to align national insurance with the personal tax allowance, a measure favoured in the past by Cable as doing more to help those on low pay“. In view, I am willing to consider this as an essential option, but if we are to move forward, it should only be allowed in a balanced budget approach. So, helping those on low pay is fine, but only if we change Basic rate to 21% and higher rate to 42%, which means that above the £10,600, the basic income goes up by a maximum of £318 and in addition, high income get an additional maximum of £836. This allows us a balanced budget. If you wonder why not the highest toll? Well, they also get the 1% of the base and the 2% of high anyway, that group is dwindling down and to seek even more to that smaller group seems a little unfair (the non-bankers that is). The second premise here is that this extra collected fee can ONLY be used to balance out the lost revenue from the basic rate group that had their annual income between £10,000 and £13,000 per annum. The rest of the collected tax MUST go towards lowering the debt. If we can believe the 2014 article by the Guardian, this will hit 6000 people, which means that it only raise a few millions, so taxing the rich has always seemed like and always remains a hilarious act of pointlessness. It is the 1% from the basic rate that will truly make a difference. It will drive the debt down faster, it will lower the interest bill which will help lower the debt even more.

It is basic calculus, an abacus can give you the information and politicians at large have just been skimming the sidelines towards the premise of confusion. If you doubt these words (always a fair notion), than ask Vince Cable to clearly explain where he found the headroom to manoeuvre!

The only big issue I have with George Osborne at this point is the voiced idea “We will ease back on austerity while sticking to our deficit-cutting target“. The article states against this “Even after a trim, Osborne’s cuts programme will still look drastic. Labour will argue that he is taking too much of a risk with economic growth and jeopardising essential public services“, in my view, easing austerity remains dangerous, the fact that the interest bill exceeds defence spending should be a massive red flag over everyone’s budget. On a global scale, bankers grow rich whilst sleeping through the bad cycle, how is this ever a good idea? Sticking to deficit cutting remains a goal, but you endanger this premise by ‘easing’. That is not a premise or a guess, it is a mathematical certainty. Whomever is telling you a different story is (as I see it) lying to you. My evidence? The 1 trillion debt, which resulted in total into £43 billion in annual interest bills and still there were £84 billion in additional loans. Total fo5r last year would be £127 billion in money going somewhere else.

The final issue is the crackdown on tax evasion, these politicians all talk and talk, but this could have been settled in the simplest of ways 2 years ago, perhaps even longer. It only requires one simple change to be accepted ALL OVER EUROPE, in all EEC nations. That one line is: “A company is taxable at the point of purchase by the consumer“, the buyer is the point of purchase, he/she buys an item, it does not matter WHERE the sales server is, by forcing locality in taxation we now see a fair dinkum approach; where the consumer spends that nation also sees taxation. I wonder how quick the Americans will now protest. They have played a long game of possum and now as we act, they will suddenly fear a drop in economic revenue as it all shifts in the true directions of where the money had gone. The change is so simple, is it not weird that those European Big Wigs could not, or would not consider such implementation? It will not make friendly faces in Ireland, but at least many will see a fair adjusted sales taxation approach.

Now we get back to the linked items, Germany is at the centre of changes that will impact the UK. I kept an eye on Bernd Lucke in the past as he was trying to drive Germany out of the Euro and the Eurozone. It was laughed of as a non-issue on more than one occasion. Now we see that Hamburg 2015 is a game changer, you might think that +6.1% is nothing, it seems low against the SPD with 45%, but the AFD now has seats where it did not have them before, also as the SPD is no longer a majority party, the game now changes in Germany for many people. The German people have had enough, the events of last month whilst a nation with a mere 2% of the Eurozone GDP is an affront to many people, especially as Greece is not cleaning up its act. This matter will soon shift in stronger ways. Linked to this is the victory Front National booked in 2015. They won the first round in the by-election. Something also quite unheard of, but not by me as I have seen the premise change all over Europe. Now as we see escalations, whilst the damage that uncertainty brings in regards to the UK total debt is seen in the growth of Ukip (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/ukip-100-second-places-may-election-nigel-farage). Now we see the title ‘Ukip on track for 100-plus second places across England‘. I believe the Greek issues will drive a walk towards the Nigel Farage party even stronger. And to more than a lesser degree it can be seen a result through the actions of Greece. Bringing up WW2 reparations was (as I see it) the worst they could have done. You see, we all have issues in that regard, but they are counterproductive. As I see it, the Germans still owe my grandfather a Bicycle (Dutch cultural joke), but that device will not do anything for any economy, now even my own and I guarantee you, the bike did not cost anywhere near €162B, even as special a bike as my grandfather had in 1943.

So I am in fear of future, because these escalations are mostly all due to non-accountability. As Greece shows the self-confidence and pride that seems to be self-destructive, we see this element of Aite the Greek band I mentioned earlier, named after the Greek goddess of folly, ruin and delusion, leading to the downfall of all Greeks in the end. Feel free to doubt my words, but only today did we see this in Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/14/eurozone-greece-italy-idUSL6N0WG08S20150314), Italy is now making clear that Grexit will not represent a risk for Italy. The Greeks allowed for a game of chance once too often, now we see: “a Greek exit would be ‘very negative’ but he was confident a solution would be found. EU executives warned on Friday that Greece abandoning the euro could lead to ‘catastrophe’“. One dark cloud does not make for Grexit, but Europe at large seems to have its fill of Greece and not facing consequences of THEIR actions. Does the Greek population realise the dangers and the hardship the Drachma will bring? The rich of Greece will get by, I reckon the rest as all savings are diminished by exchange rates a lot less so.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics

Tagged as AfD, Aite, Alexis Tsipras, Bernd Lucke, Conservatives, EEC, France, Front National, George Osborne, Germany, Greece, Grexit, Italy, Le Penn, Lib Dems, Nigel Farage, Panos Kammenos, SPD, the Guardian, Tories, UK, UKIP, Vince Cable, Yanis Varoufakis

March 13, 2015 · 11:35

True torture

This issue started a while before this. The title “Tony Abbott: Australians ‘sick of being lectured to’ by United Nations, after report finds anti-torture breach” is just an incentive for emotion. (at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-australians-sick-of-being-lectured-to-by-united-nations-after-report-finds-antitorture-breach-20150309-13z3j0.html).

There are two quotes that need to be looked at: “Mr Abbott’s criticism of the UN follows his attack last month of Australian Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs, in which he called the report she commissioned on children in detention a ‘political stitch-up’” and “The United Nations report, by the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, finds Australia is violating the rights of asylum seekers on multiple fronts under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment“.

I am all for human rights! I think Human rights are important, but what about the people ‘orchestrating’ the message?

Let’s that a look at the message ‘U.N. Urges U.S. To Treat Migrants as Refugees’ (at http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/08/329774643/u-n-urges-u-s-to-treat-migrants-as-refugees). The message seems to be clear, but what is that message? When we consider the quote “The refugee agency is particularly concerned about the large number of unaccompanied children arriving in the U.S. Washington estimates more than 90,000 unaccompanied children will arrive by the end of September“.

This was the news of last year. You see, what we all ignore (especially Labor and Greens) is that this all has a cost, it does not matter whether it is in Australia, Canada or America. When we accept refugees we accept financial responsibility to some extent. This is the not so nice part if us trying to be good and humane, there is a cost and we do not shy away from it, but we have limits, we all do! With every irresponsible act of spending what none have we limit our options and limit those who we allow in as well.

There is however another side, the side from the UN as we see the title ‘Asylum seeker torture report: United Nations special rapporteur Juan Mendez responds to Tony Abbott criticism‘ (at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-torture-report-united-nations-special-rapporteur-juan-mendez-responds-to-tony-abbott-criticism-20150310-13zrwz.html). The quote “I think we in the United Nations also deserve respect and I wish the Prime Minister had taken my views on this more seriously and engaged with my rapporteurship more constructively” is a defence and a subtitle, also a statement that is not incorrect, but perhaps incomplete. When we see the quote “Among the concerns raised by the report was that escalating violence on Manus Island, and the ‘intimidation and ill-treatment of two asylum seekers’ who gave statements about last year’s violent clashes at the centre was in breach of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” issues come to light. Now, it is important that I am not making any claims of dishonesty or that the claims are lies. There would be no way for me to prove it. In addition, it is nice that we get these ‘verdicts’ from the UN, an administrative group where those ‘voices’ are incomes vastly above minimum wage, an income fuelled by other governments, but guess what, EVERY single one of these nations are in debt, not one excluded! Yet, this is not about money, or the income of some of these comfortable living executives. Let’s take a look at some of the elements.

Let’s restate the phrase: “intimidation and ill-treatment of two asylum seekers“, now, I am willing to blindly accept the following:

There are likely more than 2 victims
Let’s accept that in every case it is always both intimidation and ill-treatment

Now let’s take a look at the information form Amnesty international (at http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/33587/), where they state the following: “There are currently 1,100 asylum seekers detained on Manus Island, all of whom are men who arrived without their families. These men have fled war, chilling acts of torture, threats of death, or profound discrimination. Many of them have made the desperate decision to make a perilous journey from Indonesia and other countries, including Sri Lanka, to Australia“.

Now, let’s be realistic and accept that more than two people have faced certain ordeals, there is no way for me to clearly find (at present) how many faced events. But if we take 20 people, than the issue revolves around 1.8% opposed to 0.18%. 1.8% might be too large, and I would agree with it, but we all seem to forget that a detention centre like that, is a place with constant pressures and clashing cultures, there are uncertain times ahead for many of these people, so pressures will come to a boil pretty fast in a place like that.

I am trying not to trivialise, but the need for better statistics is evidently required before we start a dictionary war between Australian parliament and the UN, whilst we know that the media is ‘presiding’ both sides whilst they enjoy the benefit of the occurring discord.

Yet, in the end, the actual culprit has not once been named. Oh, evil villain, oh master of the dischordian principle that weighs the loom of infinity unto the hands of fate. I have seen thee oh villain and I name thee………. (wait for it)………. Tax-Man!

Yes, in all the issues of emotion, so many forget that humanitarian aid must be paid for. Humanitarian causes require funds to exist, as do immigration centres, because they are a pure cost for any government. Which is one reason why Greece is getting rid of them tout-suit! In addition, they are so broke they are now returning to the need for WW2 reparations from Germany, which I will not condemn, but in reality, their own Tax-Man did not do anything, which covers close to 1/3rd of all their debt. So as they ignored current debts (and irresponsible spending), they go back to WW2. It makes perfect sense, the Greek PM and that finance ‘Rock Star’ have no other options (if they want to remain in power), but this is not about the Greek debt!

This is about refugees and the truth is that many nations (most of them), they are all failing refugees, mainly because of Tax-Man. You see, this super villain relies on the help of its sidekick Mrs. Poli Titian and this sidekick has been overspending, giving tax breaks to large corporations in a whimsy notion that under those condition more money would come in. It was a flawed approach, because they all rely on people SPENDING money. Guess what? They overspend on luxuries and are now paying it off, many have no jobs and many more have been in an income world that resembles the world of Frozen, whilst the cost of living is still rising. All this adds up to empty coffers.

So Mr Juan Mendez, where will these costs come from? This is not my lashing out, this is me actually asking. I remain in favour to help refugees as much as possible, but how? We need to make massive changes to the way of life we now have. Mrs Poli Titian needs to actually instigate massive changes. Not just in Australia, US, Canada et al. ALL nations need to accept certain changes. We need to readdress the way we think and I will admit right here, right now that I am at a loss how to go best about it.

In my view, there is an option, but it is not one you like, not one you will even find acceptable or humane.

Retirement homes are as per now only for those without family. If they have family, they must go there. This needs to be a global change

Yes, you are all upset now. Yet consider, if we unite families we shrink the costs of arranging all this, yet in answer, those funds will ALL go to legal aid, health care aid and refugee aid.

Refugees can come in, but only assigned to volunteer positions for places like Salvation Army, St. Vincent, Red Cross and other volunteer places. For this they receive room and board. It will give aid to other places, work force and support. For that they will receive a place in our community and after 5 years they will get automatic citizenship.

Non-compliance means expulsion from that nation!

This is not even that harsh, the situation could become a lot worse soon enough, then what will we do? As we get all these academic people (and governmental expert consultants) telling us how things will get better soon, hoping that they can avoid actually answering the question in earnest.

The Greek example of their detention centres might have been the most outspoken, but I feel certain that they are not the worst, not by a long shot. Real refugees want to work towards a better future, my solution seems to be less, but it still gives them a guaranteed future for them and their children.

The parliament of Australia site gave me two paragraphs that matter (at http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP05).

“Asylum seekers are drawn to particular countries by a range of obvious factors-proximity, family and ethnic community networks, employment opportunities and wage levels, generosity of welfare systems, levels of tolerance within existing societies, and the accessibility of determination systems. In Europe last year 70 per cent of asylum seekers sought protection in just four countries-Germany, Britain, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Acceptance rates are more revealing of a country’s political priorities, or its attitude to migration, or the weight of numbers it has had to deal with, or its diplomatic relations with ‘sending’ countries, than the genuineness of refugee claims” and “Australia is perhaps unique amongst Western countries in its capacity and willingness to remove failed asylum seekers; in other countries most failed asylum seekers simply remain. Australia has however joined other countries in attempting to discourage new applicants. The most minimal welfare payment, special benefit, is provided to illegally arrived asylum seekers even after they have been determined to be Convention refugees; they are provided with temporary visas with no family reunion entitlements; and they are denied access to settlement services tailored for and provided free to off-shore refugees”

In my view refugees would (read: should) willingly go to any place that will accept them, this information gives a slightly different view. It is also interesting that the information is incorrect. The Dutch numbers are going down, whilst the Swedish numbers were going up. Moreover, the Swedish numbers are over 25% higher, yet the premise of the writ is not strongly affected. In this light we will see that the economies of the large 6, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands and Switzerland will soon change stronger and stronger if large changes are not made. Reasoning is that ‘in earnest’ (not in condemnation of any kind), refugees are an economic burden. They often cannot speak the language, the culture is different and there will be other moments that will stop them from becoming an asset to any future (most important their own future).

The solution that I am proposing might seem ‘inhumane’, but they are cast in places where people are less likely to take advantage of them. They will be in places helping their new nation and as such themselves as well and they will get exposed to a strong impulse of skills, language and cultural foundations that will only propel them stronger in future. In that light their children will already be eligible for schools and will help them build even stronger foundations.

Is my plan the best? No, it is not, but by giving it to large industries, who gave a massive part of that to their own members of the board is certainly never going to be a solution. This is not some anti-industry chant. The issue is that life in any environment requires equilibrium. A ‘coalition’ and politicians with their ‘after-elected’ need, as I personally see it, have been uniting for the need of a few and that need has been answered for these few to such an extent that the many are now no longer regarded as essential. We have now entered into the realm of trimming. Not the trimming of the fat, but the trimming of non-consumers and in the short minded view of the industry, those, of whom they think no one needs. But in that same view we will also trim our humanity, reduced to be workers, for the lessened good of consuming.

My view is not a good one, but as I see it, it beats where we are moving towards. In the end, is my view just an exaggerated negative view? I personally wish it was so, but consider the following facts:

External debt and population

Germany – 5.5 trillion – 81m
France – 5.7 trillion – 64m
United Kingdom – 9.5 trillion – 65m
Sweden – 1.1 trillion – 10m
Netherlands – 2.5 trillion – 17m
Switzerland – 1.6 trillion – 8m

Now take the next part in close (but sceptical consideration), one report claims that for the UK servicing the debt costs a mere £43bn, which amounts to the entire defence spending of the UK. The UK collected a forecasted 650 billion in taxation last year, taking 6% of the budget away just to keep Even Steven, so if the UK wants to move forward they need to budget on 90% whilst collecting the 100% forecasted part. It is quite the miracle to make that happen. Now the UK and Germany are doing reasonably well (compared too many other nations), but they too have issues. When we look at Sweden and the Netherlands; that image swifts a lot faster in a downward spiral. Perhaps some will remember the issues Switzerland and their currency had a little over a month ago in my article ‘A seesaw for three‘ on January 18th 2015 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/18/a-seesaw-for-three/)

We now see the picture adding up to a lot more hardship, and add to that the refugees:

Germany 571K – 144
France 210K – 310
United Kingdom – 194K – 319
Sweden – 86K – 106
Netherlands – 75K – 222
Switzerland – 50K – 154

Now the view is almost complete. So for Germany we see 571,000 refugees, which means one refugee per 144 non refugees. The 144 pay for the way of one refugee. We could think that this is easy, but now consider that taxation is down, so the required money is not getting in (for various reasons). Now we see the problem, how can any government continue to support a sliding scale? This is not about fairness, because it is not fair on the refugee. I will be on the first line stating this, but when the bills are due, fairness will no longer be a factor. If we want to resolve the refugee solution, so that we all can continue giving them a future, something must give way. We can hope for a much better economy, but that is a ludicrous fantasy, even if the economy suddenly upgrades by 15%, these nations will still be hurt by the overspending and the consequential bills that became the headache for well over a decade.

So in my view we either change the way the refugee issues are addressed, or soon thereafter Australia will not be the only one sending back refugees, with the consequential nightmare that such actions will bring.

So as I contemplate the words of Juan Mendez, I wonder if Mr Mendez has considered the dangers of true torture when funds run truly dry on a near global basis. We all need to look at how it can be made better as we all should consider such steps, but in addition, no one seems to be looking at the cost of it all, yet the pressures of the rising costs of helping refugees getting a future are not being addressed in this economy, why not?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as A seesaw for three, America, Amnesty International, Asylum seekers, Australia, Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Human Rights Commission President, Canada, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, France, Germany, Gillian Triggs, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Juan Mendez, Manus Island, refugees, SMH, special rapporteur on torture, Sri-Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Sydney Morning Herald, the Netherlands, Titian, Tony Abbott, UN, United Kingdom, United Nations, www.amnesty.org.au, www.aph.gov.au

March 10, 2015 · 19:05

What we create for us

The entire issue started with Jail time for a teacher. (at http://www.epictimes.com/2015/03/jail-time-for-teacher-who-showed-students-sexually-explicit-horror-flick/). It linked to the Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/mar/06/us-teacher-sexually-explicit-horror-film-jailed-the-abcs-of-death). The issue is that she did something so wrong, that I am surprised that she is only going away for a month (with a 3 year probation). Now, I am trying to exclude the movie as much as possible. It is not about that movie (apart from the level of inappropriateness of the chosen movie).

The first part to consider is found here: “She said that she faced away from the screen throughout all the screenings of the film and was unaware of its content, a claim described by Judge Charles A Schneider as “unconscionable. There’s no way you’ll persuade me that’s what happened.”“, in my view there is every indication that she knew exactly what she did.

After the case “she handed a note to reporters that read: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.””

Last there is a sideline with the quote: “Like Kearns’s lawyer, Schneider criticised the Columbus schools board for hiring a woman who couldn’t speak Spanish. “This is what happens when you put a teacher in a class that she cannot teach,” she said. “Here we are, with the Columbus public schools telling us what wonderful things [they] are doing.””

You see, apart from hiring the wrong people, part of this is (as I see it), the continuation of something different, something we might obscure intentionally, for the simple reason that the reality is just too horrid to contemplate.

You see, the world today has become so unbalanced that the people who think that they are in control are creating a different kind of workforce. The need for cutting corners is so direct, the need for cheap is so high that those in control are as I see it creating sociopaths.

Now, to look at this we need to look at the definition. A Sociopath is a person with a psychopathic personality whose behaviour is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. (Source: dictionary.com). Now, let’s take away that part ‘often criminal’, often does not mean always!

So, now we get a person with anti-social behaviour, social conscience and moral responsibility. You might think you do not know such a person, but I think you do. You see, look at any decent workaholic and you get a person who is just that. A workaholic often is not social, it is all about work, making that person both non-social and lacking a social conscience. As we see such a workaholic, that person tends to lose moral responsibilities more and more, yet this person is for all intent and purposes not doing anything wrong, or illegal. The married one forsakes marriage and perhaps even children as this person is too busy. When the family complains, the boss, the workload and the cost of living gets blamed (not always incorrectly).

This is what the workforce created, a workforce, largely less and less connected to morality and values, all about the goal, the revenue and the target. Some will throw in a Christmas present and a Christmas party day, a tax deductable event to keep the workforce ‘sort of’ happy, with added congratulations and speeches on how well it all went and soon after that a new goal that is like to be at plus 10%.

Let’s take a look at the Sociopath, or Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD). The elements are:

A) A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honour financial obligations;
Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behaviour is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

You might ask how a workaholic would fit here, now consider the following:

i. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt or mistreated someone else.

The non-single workaholic will hide in work, being might be indifferent, but who is rationalising that this person is hurting the family that they were trying to protect by giving them something better in the first place.

ii. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honour (financial) obligations. You see, what is the viewpoint of irresponsibility? From the eyes of the psychiatrist that viewpoint is the person’s commitment to non-work and to some extent to work. And what about consistent work behaviour? Getting the targets that management sets up in a sales driven world? This point is on a scale that is revolving on the mobile premise of the moment, making this element an issue all by itself. The fact that I question that it is limited to financial obligations must also be observed. My reasoning here is that this revolves around a continuing increasing cost of living whilst the nett balance at the end seems to be diminishing. So are we confronted with irresponsibility or are we looking at a sliding scale that cannot be achieved.

iii. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead could be seen as an inability to plan ahead in the light of a changing atmosphere and at times have to make impulsive changes to keep up with a game that is forever seems to be set against the workaholic in question. For those who enter the workaholic game tend to get isolated and pushed forever forward.

So as we see the premise, in my view the three elements have been found. Now, be very certain. I am not a psychiatrist, and I have no psychiatry experience of any kind, so my view here is not just highly debatable, it could be very wrong too (and it likely is).

I see myself as a workaholic, but not as a sociopath, so why label myself as such?

Now we get back to the teacher story, because that is what started it. The quote “The film features scenes in Spanish, as well as English, Japanese and Thai, and was screened as “an act of glorified babysitting” according to Kearns’s lawyer, who claimed she showed the film out of desperation at being unable to teach Spanish. She said that she faced away from the screen throughout all the screenings of the film and was unaware of its content“, as I see it the movie would have been one of the worst choices, which makes me wonder just how extremely ‘unbalanced’ this woman was. In addition the ‘mysterious note’ as it was given to the reporter. The question that the press is not asking and that is missing in all of this is how the woman was hired in the first place. The person who hired this woman should also have been looked at. Why hire a woman, who does not speak Spanish to teach it? It makes the initial hirer less bright, no questions, no references, and no checks? Yet, how does one link to the other? Now consider whomever hired this woman and ‘b. consistent irresponsibility’. This is not the first time such an event has occurred and I think that the amount of these instances is only increasing.

I am not questioning whether more and more people are sociopaths, I am contemplating that the sliding scales of industry are pushing people in a niche group that might no longer correctly be considered to be true sociopaths. Which beckons the question, which of the other labels need to be looked at? You see, if the definition changes and relies on 5 elements the game changes significantly. Is that the solution, or is that the path we are all treading on? You see, I have been forever decently proud of being a workaholic. I create solutions, I get the work done. It is my zone to get the puzzle and to exceed the challenge. From the initial view of being the least likely to succeed and I became one of the few ending up with several University degrees. In Science, computer engineering and Law. Yet, I do not feel like a success, I just feel driven to the new challenge, the new puzzle and the next hurdle to overcome. Does that make me a sociopath? More important, when we choose to find the challenge for our future, our family or to keep up with today’s environment, are the settings of what makes a person normal or sane correct?

Now we move to the driver in these matters, the economy. Part of this we get from the article ‘US economy shrugs off winter weather to add 295,000 jobs in February‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/us-unemployment-jobs-numbers-february). The quote we need to look at is: “Furman said more work needed to be done and that the unemployment rates for African Americans and Hispanics remained unacceptably high. Youth unemployment also crept up. Unemployment for those aged 20-24 years old was 10% in February – up from 9.8% in January” and linked to this is “The actual figures beat predictions on both scores with the unemployment rate dropping to 5.5%“. I personally believe that our work environment is changing, the expectations asked from us are vastly increasing. From this I am (in an unscientific way) postulating that the demands (read: ‘pressures placed upon’) the new young workers, African Americans and Hispanics will creep higher still; add to this increasing pressures for them to get a job, the consequent higher ‘willingness’ to meet increasing unrealistic demands. This will only push these new groups into a stream that leads to more extreme editions of workaholics and very likely these people will now lean towards ‘real’ (read: stronger) sociopathic behaviour.
By the way, this example is just that an example, this issue is not an American one, it is a global one!

Is there any realistic premise that I am correct? I do not proclaim to have any idea what is the truth, but I am willing to ask the hard questions. Are you the reader contemplating these elements around you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Anti-Social Personality Disorder, ASPD, Charles A Schneider, Columbus schools board, dictionary.com, sociopath, the Guardian, US economy, Workaholic

March 6, 2015 · 12:47

Consent, a complex simplicity

There is an article in the Guardian, some will think it to be a decent piece, but I have an issue with it. There are all kinds of issues in the article, I cannot tell whether it was real, it did not feel as real. Whether it is or not is not really the issue. Yet there is an issue with it. Perhaps it is just me, but that issue is important, because the story touches on several issues, one that is close to my heart, as I was a witness for over a decade, unable to stop what had happened. Only to know, that he fled in fear, because one day, that one day that he saw me, the real me , it scared him all the way to South Africa, where he died of a Pneumonia, what a shame they likely got his prescribed anti-biotic dosage wrong, it must have made it worse. I had a great party celebrating his demise (seriously!).

The story by Monica Tan starts with a title ‘My boyfriend ‘sort-of’ raped me. But I didn’t break up with him‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/05/my-boyfriend-sort-of-raped-me-and-i-didnt-even-break-up-with-him). My very first objection, there is no ‘sort-of’ it either was or it was not. The story as it is written is a mere introduction to a case that is not mentioned here. The case was ‘R (on the application of F) v The DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin)‘, Here we see a review of the CPS as it has decided initially not to prosecute the husband. There was a realistic prospect of this case not resulting in conviction, the High Court took steps to order the CPS to look into the decision in this case. The issue before the High Court was whether ejaculation without consent could transform an incident of consensual intercourse into rape.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 gives us in Section 1:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person
(B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents

Yet when we look at the definitions of consent we see at S75(3)

“Reference to the time immediately before the relevant act began is, in the case of an act which is one of a continuous series of sexual activities, a reference to the time immediately before the first sexual activity began“, the crux is that ejaculation comes after the consent of the act. Which explains the actions of the CPS, yet I was not alone looking at this. This is not a new case and Olivia Stiles, a trainee solicitor (in those days) at Kingsley Napley wrote this: “Penetration is a continuing act and so consent can be withdrawn even after penetration has begun and this will transform an act that begins as consensual intercourse into rape. Levitt was troubled by the facts of this case insofar as it was not clear at what point the intervener should have ceased to have intercourse with the applicant. Levitt’s view was that if the intervener embarked upon the act knowing he would ejaculate inside her against her wishes then it was arguable that he knew she did not consent. However, Levitt felt that as a matter of evidence it would be impossible to prove that it had not been a spontaneous decision made at the point of ejaculation“, Olivia’s article is good to keep next to the actual case, as for me, My issue is (as I see it) stated in S76. Here we see:

76 Conclusive presumptions about consent
(1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved that the defendant did the relevant act and that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, it is to be conclusively presumed—
(a) that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and
(b) that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act

(2) The circumstances are that—
(a) the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;

So, she objected to the relevant act, she did NOT consent!

Even though it would be very hard to prove that the situation as such existed, there is a criminal event in play.

The article then continues with a reference to the Julian Assange sex issue of 2010, which is exactly what happened in ‘R (on the application of F) v The DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin)‘. Yet here her story goes south in a bad way, she writes: “It was not rape, but my reaction was too involuntary, and its intensity too high, to say that nothing bad happened. Something happened. And it had the whiff of rape”. No! It either is, or it is not and the events as prescribed add up to non-consensual sex, making it rape, assault by penetration or causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. The last one could land you in prison for life!

This all blends with the issue I have here. The quote “There is nothing more dangerous than shutting down public debate around sexual assault and domestic violence with a dismissive “lock the perpetrators up and throw away the key”. Such violence is rife in our society“. You see, some harsh changes are needed in the legislative sphere, it needed to be done yesterday and so far the law has been too soft as I see it. Domestic violence is more than a killer. When we look at the LWA (at http://www.lwa.org.uk/), we see that it accounts for 16% of all violent crimes and that it costs the public £23 billion per annum. These numbers might sound nice (or horrible), but that is not what this is about.

There needs to be much stronger legislation in regards to domestic violence. As I see it (and as I wrote before, in my article ‘Cleaning house!‘ on July 1^st 2014). It is my firm believe that Article 3 of the ECHR should state:

“ARTICLE 3, Prohibition of torture
1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. Domestic violence will be regarded as inhuman and degrading treatment of a person and is as such subject to local criminal law“

Until a larger operation makes clear case in a legal way attacking domestic violence, making it a capital crime, a massive portion of the population remains at risk. So in my view, the article by Monica Tan is an issue on several fronts.

The quotes “Now that I’ve taken a small sip at the cup of rape” and “This is not my story of rape. But it is a story with rape-ish qualities” makes me object loudly. As I see it, she never took a sip of anything. Either she was subjected to rape or she was not. It is not to be trivialised in any way. Monica found a case that was an issue in legal terms. Even though the law tries to be protective, it was flawed. The CPS states “Consent can be withdrawn at any time during sexual activity and each time activity occurs“, I am all for that however, WHY does the Sexual Offences Act 2003 not clearly states this? The issues in the caser as mentioned earlier, the writing by Olivia Stiles showed this and above all, the fact that the article ‘CPS and police focus on consent at first joint National Rape Conference‘, written on the 28^th of January 2015 discusses this (at http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_and_police_focus_on_consent_at_first_joint_national_rape_conference/), should be sustenance for discussion.

Monica Tan has now mixed two issues, issues that are clearly linked, but remain separate. The law is so bend on the sexual crime issues, making it all murkier, and again more powerful legislation needed to deal with domestic abuse falls behind again. I personally feel that if we can effectively lower domestic violence, it would also impact sexual offences as a whole. I personally witnessed as a kid for many years how my mother was beaten to near death again and again. I was too young and too late to protect her, but in the end I danced on my father’s grave (I did it to the Shaggy song ‘it wasn’t me’) in 2002.

As I personally see it, Monica Tan found an interesting case, added a picture of a woman looking distressed in bed added emotions and got a story out there. The legal ramifications on consent are interesting, but that is all, interesting! The issue of consent stays, and is still debated largely. I personally feel that taking the CPS event as a centre piece, illuminating that consent remains an issue would have been a lot better. You see, the heart of the matter was a clearly stated in the CPS article in 70 words: “Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said: “For too long society has blamed rape victims for confusing the issue of consent – by drinking or dressing provocatively for example – but it is not they who are confused, it is society itself and we must challenge that. Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area – in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely” and guess what, domestic violence is NEVER EVER done with consent. There is always a transgressor and a victim!

That part must be dealt with, it should have been done so decades ago. If that had been done, than perhaps my mother might have been around to share in the pride, when I was added to the roll of attorneys, it was not meant to be!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as ALISON LEVITT QC, Alison Saunders, Cleaning house!, CPS, DPP, ECHR, High Court, Kingsley Napley, LWA, Monica Tan, Olivia Stiles, R (on the application of F) v The DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Guardian, UK

March 3, 2015 · 20:48

The dangers of freedom

I am all for freedom, I reckon that anyone growing up in Western Europe, USA or the Commonwealth has that same feeling. We love our freedom. There is however a dangerous downside. As I see it, freedom comes with the granted option to become an idiot, a moron or any other type of person that we usually find revolting to some extent. There is another group. There is nothing wrong with hem. They seem to be nice, they seem to be honest, and usually are portrayed as fair and they believe in fair dinkum. This is all good, no negative word on that part, they also exercise their right to free speech and they do just that. They believe in certain change, which is all good, but now these people are pushing us all into a dangerous area, where the consequences could be dire. This is not so good, yet they believe that they are doing the right thing. Some might state that the road to hell is paved on good intention. I think that this is too strong a statement, I believe that those people are getting on a bandwagon that goes into a foul direction, because they do not foresee the dangers that lie ahead. This is the issue!

We see this side in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/03/australian-republicans-we-can-no-longer-afford-to-wait-for-the-monarchs-passing). The title ‘Australian republicans: we can no longer afford to wait for the monarch’s passing‘ gives a hint of what some might regard as treason, but I am still willing to see it as people, devoted to Australia, but not seeing the dangerous currents of that journey. That excuse is not valid, when we consider the article with Bill Shorten (at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/25/move-to-a-republic-would-show-australia-is-modern-and-inclusive-bill-shorten-says), ‘Bill Shorten: move to a republic would reflect a modern and inclusive Australia‘. Here we go on dangerous grounds.

You see, the politicians are all about self-preservation! No matter who gets hurt in the process!

My reasoning? I had highlighted them on earlier events, the list is long. One link is found with the ABC (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/shorten-says-car-manufacturing-shutdown-was-not-inevitable/5250834), Where Bill Shorten stated: ““All of a sudden, all the car component makers (in Australia) for Holden don’t have enough work,” he said. Mr Shorten says “government subsidies for car makers are essential for keeping manufacturing alive”“. Well, we have seen the use of subsidies, in that same article we see the statement: “”Australia subsidises its car manufacturing in the order of about $17 (per car), whereas the Germans do it at about somewhere between $65 and $90 and the Americans, $250″”, yet, when we see the Australian (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/lies-damn-lies-and-car-subsidy-statistics/story-fnbkvnk7-1226824091831), we get: “Reworking the figures, it turns out that Australia has subsidised the manufacturing of vehicles to an extraordinary extent — $US1885 per vehicle, compared with Sweden ($US297), Germany ($US206) and the US ($US166). In other words, Australia has the highest rate of budgetary assistance of the seven first-world countries listed“. We could argue that this amounts to slave labour, as the subsidies is so large that the factories end up with prepaid labour. How is this not regarded as slave labour? Because people are allowed to go home and the money comes from somewhere else? Why should car be subsidised to SUCH extent? In addition, we get the quote “We now know that Toyota Australia has received nearly $500 million in the past four years. Given that there are some 2500 Toyota employees, this works out at $50,000 a worker a year“, so we have car manufacturing plants which seem to come with prepaid labour. How can a nation survive when these factories bend over backwards to avoid taxation and in addition, they received well over $100 million a year?

The next part comes from the Courier mail (at http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-the-nations-budget-is-broken-but-bill-shorten-and-labor-wants-to-stop-us-fixing-it/story-fnihsr9v-1227143768045), “The Budget deficit blew out to an astonishing $48 billion last financial year, largely because the previous Labour governments went on a massive spending binge and left nothing but IOUs in the kitty come the next global financial crisis“, by the way, the Labour party has NEVER given any clear explanation on how that money was spend, on what it was spend, and who signed for it. I reckon that is why the Labor party decided on the three party stooges approach (I wonder who plays Curly), namely Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, and now Bill Shorten. There was additional bad news, there is NO WAY that the drop in Iron was to be predicted. Neither Labor nor Liberals saw that coming. It cut export with an additional amount surpassing 30 billion, when the coffers are empty, that is not a good thing.

Now we get to the Bill Shorten Republican view. Here we see the following: ““Let us breathe new life into the dream of an Australian head of state,” he said. “114 years ago Australians found the courage and goodwill to transform this continent into a commonwealth. In the 21st century let us live up to their example. Let us declare that our head of state should be one of us.”“, you see, the article reads nicely unrealistic. There are parts that are not mentioned at all. I will get to them soon.

In the same light that Labour overspend us into massive debt, as Labour wrongly ‘illustrated’ the car industry, he also sees his option to get a little ahead as a possible first head of state (odd, do we not have a prime minister?), as he fantasises himself to become. You see, becoming a republic comes with a massive amounts of additional debts we cannot even fathom. As part of this Commonwealth, we are not alone, our army is a joke compared to Russia or China (65000 soldiers do not add up to much against the other large players), even against Indonesia, which might not have state of the art equipment, but they outnumber us 4 to 1, not the best odds to have. Together as one Commonwealth, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, we do wield a massive bat, we are part of a whole. So if China wants to play rough (or Russia for that matter), we have a few big brothers in our corner. Now, we could rely on New Zealand to give aid as soon as needed (they would never back down from helping a neighbour), but as Air Vice-Marshal Gavin Turnbull might confirm, the Sopwith Camel really does not have the range to make it to Australia, meaning we need to rely on our own planes alone.

This is only one element and not the most important one when we need to rely on our freedom. You see, I believe that Labor is squarely in the pocket of the US Democratic Party (the one who nearly bankrupted the US), the US is playing too many dangerous games, enabling big business, not holding big business accountable and overall not having the ability to manage its budget. Labor is on the same footing, and how long until the Labor party dances to the song of the White House, making us lose our choices, our freedoms and our value of fair dinkum. Is that what we desire?

What is so bad on being part of what we used to regard the British Empire? I believe that the core values that this Empire had, which were moved into this Commonwealth of ours is still good, it is still strong and it is every bit as Australian as it is British. When the lower classes here lose it all as business no longer deems these people to be of marketed value, who will they cry for? Labour? No, that lot just gave their rights away. In this the Liberal party is not without faults either, but they are not on the republican horse, giving us heaps more options.

This economy is in a bad state, no one denies that. I myself am hurting as much as many others, but like the harsh methods of Germany in 2009, their Austerity saved them and got them on top, I feel that the same will work here, Labor overspending by spending each annual budget twice is too dangerous for us. This is at the heart of the issue.

It is all directly linked to us remaining part of the Commonwealth, the one part that Labor SHOULD have been doing, they are not (or so it seems)! I voiced more than once that our future is on finding strong interactions with other Commonwealth members and offer what we have in surplus, whilst getting what they have in surplus. With Nurses here looking for jobs and the UK having such a massive shortage, why are we not seeking solutions together? Not just the medical industry, we need to put our commonwealth heads together, solving them together, not playing politics on who looks better in a pissing contest, which leaves us with a smelly floor and no actual solution. In this we should also look at what we could mean to Scotland and vice versa. Scotland will at some point be more independent, would it not be great if our message of fair dinkum and our workforce could help this stability, because a stable and prosperous Scotland helps all members of the Commonwealth, including the UK.

So as the Honourable BS talks about some republic, he should realise that unless the deficits and the bad economy are solved, we have no future ahead, other than one as someone’s vassal, a path we evolved from long ago, so whatever story he spins on how the republic gets a better business profile would soon be dead, as soon as people realise that it only opted for one goal, to give large corporations a place to get by on 1-3% taxation, how would that ever be fair dinkum?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as ABC, Air Vice-Marshal Gavin Turnbull, Australia, Bill shorten, China, Commonwealth, Courier mail, Gavin Turnbull, Germany, Julia gillard, Kevin rudd, labour party, Liberal Party, New Zealand, Russia, Scotland, Sopwith Camel, Sweden, the Commonwealth, the Guardian, the US, Toyota, USA, Western Europe, White House

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives