Category Archives: Law

October 11, 2014 · 12:02

Intentionally not that bright?

On average, why do you not give your $2 (or £1) to the junk sitting at the entrance to the underground? Why are you hesitant to give the same to the drunk half passed out on the street? This is not a question of morale, or on the idea that you might have a ‘Samaritan’ bone in your body. This is purely human nature, we all do ‘good’ things at times, we give to the red cross, the Salvo’s, yet when we know that the money will go into health endangering acts, like money so the junk can buy more drugs, how do we feel then?

I tend to not give any!

I do my share, the daffodil, the heart foundation, starlight, legacy; the list goes on for a while. I do not give a boatload, but I definitely spend dollars on good causes. These causes make sense and I feel that there is a moral obligation to do things for those less fortunate than me. Yet, knowing a junk will buy more drugs stops me from giving, and yes there are no exceptions. I do not think my way of thinking is out there, many follow my lead. So why do I read ‘Poor nations ‘pushed into new debt crisis’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/10/poor-nations-debt-crisis-developing-countries), how moronic (read: overly simplified silly) is the act of giving loans to a group that cannot control a budget? When we see “Jubilee Debt Campaign says as many as two-thirds of 43 developing countries it analysed are at risk over next decade” as well as “Coinciding with the World Bank’s annual meeting in Washington, the anti-poverty campaigners accuse the international lender and other public bodies of “leading the lending boom” to poor countries without checking how repaying debts will divert resources from cutting poverty“. I would change that in how can we make international lender accountable for their own bad choices?

Not unlike Wonga ruling (at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/oct/03/payday-lenders-repay-loans-wonga), these nations should get those loans expunged and the international lenders will just lose their money. They will of course disagree, but the entire loan issue is getting massively out of hand and those enabling them get paid no matter what. This needs to stop.

Sarah-Jayne Clifton, director of the Jubilee Debt Campaign, makes a good case, yet overall she is not willing to far enough on one side and is treading where she should not on the other side. Let me explain this. At the end, the quote is “As such, the campaigners are urging the UK government to push for policies that support developing countries in increasing their tax revenues by clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion“.

No, no, no, no, no! That is not a good idea!

Pushing for policies tends to be a slippery slope (even though the approach is not that bad), in addition, the issue with developing countries and their tax push is only one side, which is the wrong side. These developing countries need to take a hard look on what they are spending these loans on and WHO they are enabling in the first place.

Let’s take a look at a few quotes from the past years and see how they fit in: “Ana Olivera took office on Friday promising to streamline the overweight administration of Uruguay’s capital“. Seems like a good approach. It must sting the Americans to no end that the elected official is a communist. OK, Ana Olivera is only mayor of Montevideo, but that village contains well over 50% of the population of that entire nation, which gives the mayor loads of political power. Uruguay is sometimes called the Netherlands of Latin America, because of its social approach, yet Uruguay is almost 5 times the size of the Netherlands and a mere ferry ride away from Buenos Aires (in case you want to have some cosmopolitan fun). There is method to my madness and here it comes. When we see the news in the International Business Times (at http://www.ibtimes.com/uruguays-economy-will-struggle-unemployment-inflation-it-will-grow-4-percent-2014-1540214), an article from last January where we see that some nations can get a decent grip on their debts, although inflation remains a worry for now. Bloomberg had some additional issues (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-19/uruguay-s-growth-pushing-inflation-above-target-bergara-says.html), “Uruguay, a nation of 3.3 million people wedged between South America’s two largest economies, has since become less dependent on trade with Argentina“, it gives rise to worry about inflation, yet it seems that they are staying on top of it for now.

This links back to the other ‘poor’ nations. These players seem to be given an unofficial charter of bad financial management. If it were just one or two issues, no! When we see the report that two thirds is in the high risk zone of getting a new debt crises, even though most of them got their debts written off, we can clearly see the proverbial pattern of junkies. This of course makes for the analogy that it turns the international lender as a debt dealer at best and as a debt pusher at worst. So, here we see my part of disagreeing with Sarah-Jayne Clifton. We need to put into place clear policies on how loans are to be allowed in the first place. How these nations are currently held to account (and accountable)! If we see a structural failing, then we have a duty to deal with that weakness and deal with the implied ‘pain’ from such irresponsible actions. Yet, governments and ‘overseers’ of these lending institutions seem not to be willing to do just that, we can assume we know the reason, but that is just listening to gossip ;-).

However, as I go for the expression of being artistic, there is this story about being black and that story is played by a pot and a kettle. How can we push for responsible, budgeted governing when the big players involved seem to be unable to do just that (USA, United Kingdom and Australia, but to name a few). Is it truly conspiracy theory inclined to claim that governments are over enabling banks and financial institutions? I am very willing to accept that I am wrong here, but the numbers all speak into my favour (towards my train of thought), so what is the link?

Consider the impact of Neoliberalism. Consider how the term changed usage and to a certain effect the value and application from the 1930’s, the 1980’s and it seems that the concept is changing again. In the 30’s it came from a desire to avoid repetitive economic failures that were visible up to the early 1930s, this resulted in the gesture of blame towards economic policy of ‘classical’ liberalism. Then later on it had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to the radical and privately held transactions between parties, set in a ‘free’ (read: unaccountable) environment, free from intrusive government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidised capitalist set of ideas. Is it not interesting how this version as we see it now, is all about what it was with added non taxability and non-accountability? It is a new form of Neoliberalism with a twist that is all about enabling the wealth driven and the wealth begotten, yet in that view neo liberalism is not just a ‘new’ kind of liberalism, it is not just based on ‘old’ values of civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and free trade. It is enabling non-accountability, non-taxation and even non-prosecutable to a certain extent. So the freedom they have been given are evolving into a total form of freedom where they obscure, device and decide, whilst the people get saddled with the bill of their appointed exploitation.

How is that liberal in any way, shape or form?

There is none more part we can look at. It comes from the paper ‘Neoliberalism and the Global Financial Crisis’ by Sharon Beder (at http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/GFC.html).

The paper has a very fitting part where the topic headline reads ‘Financial Market Coercion‘ and we see “Whilst the IMF and the World Bank enforced the Washington Consensus on poorer countries in desperate need of capital, other more affluent countries were forced into adopting the same formula by the world’s financial markets. Their vulnerability to these markets was facilitated by financial deregulation“. This is what we see in action. Additional we see: “Financial deregulation was demanded by business interests, particularly large financial firms and transnational corporations that wanted to be free to move their money around. The economic argument for financial deregulation, supplied by free market think tanks and economic advisors, was that the free and unregulated movement of capital is more efficient, because capital can move to where it gets the best returns (Helleiner 1996, 194, Bell 1997, 103-4).”

Yet in that part, it does not state the one issue that is massively in play for governments on a global level. This is read in the part “free and unregulated movement of capital is more efficient, because capital can move to where it gets the best returns“, but what is does not state, which it should “free and unregulated movement of capital is more efficient, because capital can move to where it gets the best returns, absolvent of taxation and financial duties“. Now we get back to these ‘poor’ nations. Yes, they are getting pushed into new debt crises, as the facilitating business branches are all about getting money out and not paying for taxation which was enabled by neoliberalism (their altered version of) as I see it.

Is it not an interesting part that we now see the scary view that a Uruguayan communist shows more social responsibility then the ‘free west’ has shown in the last decade?

As I stated it before, when you make banks and big business the facilitator for the future, you will see that their only future you end up with is their own selfish needs. This is why the push for policies by Sarah-Jayne Clifton worried me; she might end up giving the keys to that group of people that should never have access to the keys in the first place, not if a nation wants to do anything for its people. Is there a better solution? It seems that either we go the Uruguayan way and deal with inflation dangers, yet the other way is equally drenched in risks and dangers. The first order is to set up the right policies that keep large corporations tax accountable. They might ‘threaten’ to walk away and to go to Paris or something like that, yet a nation has a multi-million consumers market. If a firm cannot do business, in the end, they stop from being a business and someone else steps in. We need to stop the greed that these investors represent. I am however at a loss to give a clear answer of what will actually work. There are too many variables and not enough people ready to stand up for that what must be decided upon, so we stay in an impasse, a status quo that had stopped being just that years ago, we just do not see clearly how much we lose every day, so we continue the status quo as is.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as Ana Olivera, Australia, Buenos Aires, Financial Market Coercion, Helleiner, Jubilee Debt Campaign, Montevideo, Neoliberalism, Neoliberalism and the Global Financial Crisis, Sarah-Jayne Clifton, Sharon Beder, United Kingdom, Uruguay, USA, Wonga

October 9, 2014 · 06:44

The murder of innocence

This is not a nice article, if you want nice, then this is not the place. Today, you will read an article of a form of legalised injustice so extreme that it will turn your stomach. It is laced with sadness. The primary ingredients here are truth, violence and a dash of incompetence hiding behind the law.

Welcome to Canada!

This is a strange place to start; under normal conditions we have the highest regards for Canada. At times it seems like America, but with real family values, no crime and plenty of true maple leaf grade Mother Nature. So this story does not seem to fit, but it does. Every nation has its own black pages, I know, I have seen a few. This Canadian black page is however one that was initially created with the best of intentions has now rapidly span out of control, so where to begin?

First, let me the main source that influenced my view. The first one is the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/03/-sp-rape-bullying-rehteaeh-parsons-audrie-pott-families), yet, I have to add two more sources, who had some of the goods that gave me the view I had the second one is Buzzfeed (at http://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/canadian-media-wont-say-this-alleged-rape-victims-name-even#ogrzx5), as well as an older article by the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/09/rehtaeh-parsons-suicide-charged-photos).

We are now starting to get a decent amount of visibility, but what happened?

In November 2011, a young lady, 15 years old, her name is Rehtaeh Parsons; she was raped by 4 boys. The account from one of the sources states that she went with a friend to another friend’s home. 4 boys had their way with her. You would hope that it ends here, but no, this is only the beginning. One of the boys was apparently proud of it all, and as such decided it would be fun to distribute photos of the events to people in Rehtaeh’s school and community, after which it went viral.

So in this paragraph, we can see several crimes already.

There was an accomplice (an accomplice is one who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime).

Whether this person was one of the four is very likely, but not a given at this point (meaning that there were at least 5 criminals). In one source (at http://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/canadian-media-wont-say-this-alleged-rape-victims-name-even#2s4b60i), there is mention of another girl. The quote states “She and another girl were drinking with four teenage boys that night“, so is she a possible accomplice, if so why was that not looked at (if these details were correct)?

There are photographs of non-consensual sex, which means that in chronological sequence, we have a. sexual assault, b. rape, c. distribution of (child) pornography.

It seems extremely ‘convenient’ that under Canadian law the Judge, as lawful given to requires judges to prohibit the publication of information that could identify victims of child pornography under any and all circumstances. I can understand that part to some extent, yet in light of the events, the picture does not fit, especially as the pictures represent the smallest of the three criminal transgressions.

These events have only started, because as it turns out, those acts of bestiality might be regarded as the introduction to the true hell she would be forced to face.

We now get the following quotes: “Rehtaeh did not consent to the photo or know it was taken, but that didn’t stop her assailants from sending it around school. Soon, boys Rehtaeh had never met were calling her a slut and asking her to sleep with them, too.” and “Rehtaeh and her parents reported the alleged assault and the photo a week later, Leah said. After a year-long investigation, the police decided there was insufficient evidence to press charges. According to the family, the police added that it was a “he said, she said” case as well as a “community issue,” not a “police issue.” The photograph didn’t count as pornography, even though she was a minor, they said they were told.”

When we look at the Canadian Red Cross (art http://www.redcross.ca/what-we-do/violence-bullying-and-abuse-prevention/educators/bullying-and-harassment-prevention/facts-on-bullying-and-harassment) we get a few more numbers, which are important to this case too.

A 2010 research project studying 33 Toronto junior high and high schools reported that 49.5 per cent of students surveyed had been bullied online.
Between 4–12 per cent of boys and girls in grades 6 through 10, report having been bullied once a week or more.

Finally there is the following:

School social workers provide services to students who are experiencing difficulties within their environment, which impacts on their school functioning.

We now get a few more issues.

The extent to which the school failed a student, a victim to a heinous crime.
The police that failed on at least three levels
a. Failed to bring criminal charges against at least 4 persons, likely, the girl mentioned earlier might have had to be charged as well.
b. Failed to cyber prosecute the phones and phone details of all the students who had received the photos at her school and in her community. A clear cyber trail could have been received.
c. Failed to investigate the school board for not notifying the authorities on more than one occasion.

From these events we see that this situation is far from over. There is absolutely no evidence that these boys faced any level of persecution (or prosecution for that matter), which gives ample view that Canadian Law failed on a second level. It failed because the parts of Canadian support that should have shielded Rehtaeh Parsons from the levels of post rape ordeals became mere facilitators for the events to be ignored, consequently silenced though law and postulated to be forgotten.

But it is not that simple, as stated, the judge’s order that bans ‘the nation’s media and even its citizens from printing her name‘ are now confronted to a league of people who are connected through internet and social media. As Canada seemed to legally forget the name of a victim, people all over the Commonwealth and beyond will echo her name through the web, for all eternity she will be remembered.

But all this would not become the story with a better ending; the sadness would remain, because on Sunday night April 7^th 2013, the 17-year-old’s family took her off life-support, three days after she hanged herself in the bathroom.

The sadness, not of the parents, not of the few friends she might have, not of her sisters or her pets, but of the girl a mere 17 summers, who faced the cold of winter for more than a year until her moment of death, leaving this earth without knowing peace. I ask all Canadian fathers, to consider your child having to face such a dark end and then consider the injustice that has been enabled by several parties and there is at present little to no faith that this will improve.

To them I ask to consider, to change laws and to change the environment that propels such injustice. Canada was globally seen as a good place, make it a safer place for all victims and give them the support and protection they deserve, which would restore Canada to the good place it once seemed to be.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Buzzfeed, Canadian Law, CNN, cyber bullying, Glen Canning, Halifax, Rehtaeh Parsons, sex crimes, suicide, the Guardian

October 5, 2014 · 22:41

The cost of doing Business

It is the guardian again, not in anything specific; however generically speaking there is an issue that requires visibility.

Let’s take a look at the following headlines: “Ebola is in America – and within range of Big Pharma“, “How bet365 profits from Chinese punters who risk jail for gambling” and “Brutal competition batters supermarkets the world over“, here is the cost of doing business.

How is it relevant?

That is the first part, this is not about relevance, and also, these issues are not linked (as far as I can tell), but they do have something in common (other than that they were all in the Guardian on October 5^th 2014). Let’s take a look at big pharma. The article comes from Julia Kollewe and is a good read, from the article I got the following parts:

“Unfortunately, the standard economic model for drug development, in which industry takes all of the risk in R&D and gets a return on investment from successful products, does not work for diseases that primarily impact low-income countries and developing healthcare systems” and “GSK is developing a malaria vaccine that could be ready late next year and is expected to be sold on a not-for-profit basis. Its success rate was only about 30% in infants but better in toddlers, although final clinical results and data on the effect of a booster are still due“, last there is “Turner says two commissions are looking at alternative financial models. One idea is that governments could underpin the economic cost of drug development by committing early to buy the first 2m doses of a new vaccine, for example“. How is any of this ‘just accepted’? Let’s take a look at GlaxoSmithKline. It made 25 billion in 2013 with a net income of well over 5 billion (20% net income is amazingly good). Is that not enough? Is the issue not on how they come up with something, how it becomes a solution and then they make a fortune. So, why must they get ‘a set government incentive’? Why are we allowing for governments to bank on failure? Is their continued existence not based upon proven success? Now let’s take a look at the BBC article from May 10th 2012 (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-17993945) where we see: “The programme obtained confidential tax agreements detailing plans to move profits off-shore to avoid what was a 28% corporate tax rate at the time. Those involved include pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)“. So, not only are they ‘avoiding’ certain due invoices to the Coffers of Osborne, they want pre-ordered and ordained solutions? An anointed decree of set maximised profits. It reads like these boards of directors have a spine no stronger than a paperback, one that is comprised of balance sheets I might add.

So, as we say goodbye on how big pharma will find new ways to get loads of cash on possible medicinal solutions, we should take a look at number two.

‘Brutal competition batters supermarkets the world over’, the article states ‘observer writers’ yet gives us no names. When we look at certain parts we see a view that is incomplete, but seemingly not inaccurate “Aldi has made huge gains in market share in Australia, from about 3% in 2005 to 10% this year“, this means that the two running the show (Coles and Woolworths), will get a third to deal with. There is more to the entire situation, as we look at the price of milk in Australia “The battle for the hearts and dollars of Australian consumers has distressed the dairy industry, threatened small shopkeepers and prompted a Senate inquiry“, yet is that it? Consider that the dairy market is suddenly downgraded in revenue in excess of 20%, how can that be fair or even good to the supplier and when that is no longer an option, how will the consumer pay for milk when offers will dwindle to 2 suppliers? Then what will the market do?

Last there is ‘Revealed: how bet365 profits from Chinese punters who risk jail for gambling online’, which is an interesting article by Simon Goodley. It is the subtitle that gets us the first part “Bookmaker ‘rotates website addresses to keep ahead of authorities’, says employee“, which already implies that the cost of doing business and ethics are no longer in synch with one another. Ethicality has become a nuisance, especially when a business is actively ‘keeping ahead of the authorities‘.

Then we read “The gambling group says its legal advice is that it has broken no law by taking bets from the country“, is a local law the only part of legality?

When we consider Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (UK), we see at sections 44 through to 46, three inchoate offences of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence; encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed; and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed. Is that not the implied part of the ‘alleged’ crime when we see the term ‘keeping ahead of the authorities’?

When we look at section 48(3) we see that a person can only be found guilty of the offence under section 46 (encouraging or assisting offences believing that one or more will be committed) if the offence or offences that the jury find the defendant believed would be committed are specified in the indictment. Yet, this is not enough, for the most, it is not clear to me whether this applies to crimes outside the UK, however In Part 1 section 4 we see “For the purposes of section 1(1)(a), a person has been involved in serious crime elsewhere than in England and Wales if he;

(a) has committed a serious offence in a country outside England and Wales;
(b) has facilitated the commission by another person of a serious offence in a country outside England and Wales; or
(c) has conducted himself in a way that was likely to facilitate the commission by himself or another person of a serious offence in a country outside England and Wales (whether or not such an offence was committed).”

This seems to give enough to warrant it all (if the Jury would agree on this). So why is there such an abundance of acts and actions?

You see, the three articles are unrelated, but together they show a massive change in morale and ethics, the kind that people tend not to get back from. This might be the UK (to some extent), but it is clear that these events have been a fact in the US and are starting to get a more stringent grip to the acts of people in both Canada and Australia.

Now for the part that is linking these three views together. Let’s be clear, that this is a personal link, and as such it is debatable on many levels and also that is up to you to agree and disagree. I am not here to path the road for you, I merely speak of where the next place is, and how you get there is up to you. The press seems to favour emotion over logic (to a certain degree), you see, logic is all about reasoning and emotion is about (rashly) acting. The press gets more signals from the emotional reader, so as we react to soaps and reality TV, the press is having a field day cashing in on a league of events, all informative (in their viewpoint), yet overall not that result driven. Is it for that reason that we see a growing calendar on ‘human events’?

As we look at the big pharma piece we see a growing lack of ethicality. They state one thing, whilst pressing other avenues. The statement of moving in one direction, yet not willing to go the entire distance is something entirely unacceptable. We see the stories on how it is all so expensive to create a drug, yet the other side is not told, on how the top 20 are making in excess of half a trillion dollars, whilst in addition their net revenue is around 25%, which is one of the strongest profit margins. At this point we need to take a look at the initial premise of ‘pre-ordaining’ 2 million vaccines. How unbalanced is all this and with margins that large, why are they allowed these tax breaks?

The Bet365 issue could be regarded as an act, likely to be recklessly criminal. If there was no crime, these places could live on a static IP and we would not see the phrase ‘keeping ahead of the authorities‘. We have entered a stage of living where morality is not just taking a backseat, it is leaving the room, add to that a rapidly declining system of ethics and we end up with a change into chaos. You would wonder how a government would allow for that. Well, that is where the issue becomes murky. I think that for some time now, we have been living under a false pretence. Not unlike Sweden, where in 1917 the King’s powers were considerably reduced, becoming a figurehead with only limited political authority. A change that was done in that case for the good of the Swedish people, yet in many other nations big business made a similar change, only they did not remove power of those elected, as a long term strategy they placed themselves ABOVE the law. This is shown in several of my blogs and the acts BBC showed involving GlaxoSmithKline is only the smallest of examples. I discussed this in my blog ‘The Sanctimonious pretender‘ on August 30th where I stated: ‘Big firms consider leaving the Netherlands, says KPMG report‘, the quote “Some of the Netherlands’ biggest companies are considering leaving the country because of the worsening climate for entrepreneurs, according to a new report by consultants group KPMG“. Well, this is not about worsening climates, this is because nations with a monarchy require a fair bit of accountability, which is why the Netherlands and the United Kingdom has seen much stronger measures for the protection of the people and less so in favour of Big Business.

It is important that we seek solutions that require accountability for all, not just those who are not too rich. It is a tall order, but it can be done if we work together. We accept that there is a cost of doing business, but the view as agreed upon seems to differ as to what big business accepts as a valid cost and what everyone else thinks is a valid cost.

In a world of rapid degeneration of values like Ethics, Morality and Accountability we need to make sure that we see a stronger focus in these three values, if not, standing up to big business might no longer be an option.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Australia, BBC, Bet365, Big Pharma, Canada, Coles, corporate tax rate, drug development, Ebola, England and Wales, George Osborne, GlaxoSmithKline, gsk, Julia Kollewe, KPMG, malaria vaccine, Serious Crime Act 2007, Simon Goodley, Swedish, the Guardian, United Kingdom, Woolworths

October 2, 2014 · 11:51

Advice from the press?

So, as we look at the Guardian, we see someone stating that we need an independent monitor. So, what is going on? To be quite honest, at first I thought I was reading a cartoon. The fact that the spokespersons name is Julian Disney did not help matters (and I so love my Disney movies).

Yet, this is not me having a go at a respectable person. I do not know Prof Julian Disney AO; he is a professor of Law at UNSW. Even though those from UTS will always happily have a go at their academic brethren (Australian graduates regard the rivalry between Oxford vs. Cambridge and Harvard vs. Yale to be mere child’s play), we do keep all professors in high regard!

Yet, that does not mean that we will not oppose them when needed and this is as I see it such a moment!

I have been very vocal in the past in regards to the press, their actions and their flaws, their massive flaws. It seems that the press all about ‘self-regulating’ and beyond that it is all about public advocates (so that they will have access to materials. Yet, the intelligence field does not operate in this way. I had a few concerns, which I addressed as “I would have preferred that a clear location would be there to alert someone, even if it was a special appointed judge“, which allows for whistle blowers to the smallest extent, but not one that is open to all. I want to be certain that the information is properly vetted for ‘misuse’ (read: whinge to promote one’s self agenda and career).

So yes, I have issues with the article (at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/02/australian-press-council-spy-powers-independent-monitor). My first issue is “The Greens senator Scott Ludlam announced on Wednesday the Greens would not be supporting the next tranche of legislation, which will force telecommunications companies to keep the personal details of Australians for two years“. We have two options here, either the DSD (Australian version of GCHQ) gets all the data, or they get access to the data when properly needed. They opted for option two, which means that telecoms need to hold on to data. Listen up people, this means that your data is safe until there is a direct known threat, which will allow for a ‘data warrant’. So if you did nothing, you will never show up in their lists. To be clear, in America, the NSA opted for solution one, which gives them all your actions and as such you were ‘mined’ for flags. This means that in 99.999657% likelihood (roughly), they never saw you, they mined you with processes, but no person ever saw your actions.

The second quote is “He added that it was critical for the inspector general of intelligence and security, journalists and the community to continue to monitor how the new laws were implemented“, I agree with most of this view, but let’s change ‘, journalists and the community‘ into ‘a special appointed and security cleared judge‘. I have nothing against the proper person monitoring what happens and as I am still in favour of a legal approach, it should be a special appointed judge and let’s keep the journo’s out of that part, for several reasons. Let’s not forget that the Sunday Mirror entrapment sting is less than a week old and we have seen our share of issues, especially when there was some free for all against Julia Gillard, with the questions aimed at Tim Mathieson to be the ‘Ruddy’ cake, the icing and the candles. There are several more issues. I admit we are not as bad as that island on the other side of the planet, but when it comes to trusting the press, we should all have issues, especially as the Sony issue was ignored by ALL!

So, as it stands, at present I will oppose the Australian Press Council on this.

There is however something in the quote “This will affect every man, woman and child and every device in the country. Now the government has rammed the Asio laws through the Parliament today it is now turning its sights on every internet user in the country“, this statement is not incorrect, yet the people (read the press and politicians) are both dancing around one issue, whilst another issue is the real threat. It is not that the Intelligence community has access. They are merely there to stop the dangers of terrorism. My issue from the very beginning has been ‘who else gets to have access‘. Here we see the real danger, which the press seems to be unwilling to voice. Why? Is a company like Telstra too able to ‘uproot’ your careers? That fear was voiced by me in the blog ‘For our spies only!‘ which I wrote on the 26^th of September, the issue is not what should get access, but what will end up having access too that is to a larger degree a concern. I am still convinced that if data retention becomes a larger issue, the intelligence community will be lacking in hardware, knowledge and staff to deal with these massive amounts of data, which leaves us open to other issues, yet this is just my view!

Now consider the impact!

What impact could there have been? Well, to understand that, we have to take a look at yesterday’s news (at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/jihadist-sponsor-accused-may-have-made-one-fatal-error-that-led-to-his-arrest/story-fni0fee2-1227075746698). The issue here is not how they got him, but how they almost did not get him. The issue was luck, if the FBI did not have a record on all 12 Americans in Syria, we would not know. Hassan El Sabsabi was allegedly funding people to join Islamic State. He would still be in business, and your money on pizza would have gone to support Islamic State. What a lovely meal you would be having then. Was it perhaps the peperoni supreme?

If ASIO had the data and the scripts would have been running, it is likely that he would have been known earlier, more important, who else is doing this? If they funded a non-American they could still be in business and perhaps they still are. There is no evidence that there was only one person doing this, there is evidence that he is unlikely to be the only one. Did you sign up for your Pizza, your Salad or your Sushi to be the foundation for another terrorist? No! So let ASIO do their job! In this case the press will only advice on the things that further their OWN cause, which tends to be circulation and advertisement. That part has been in the foreground in such a blatant way, that I feel no other option then to oppose the view Professor Disney is offering. Possible we will see more information on what happens next and perhaps the Professor will sway my view. I do not think so, but ignoring voices of wisdom tends to be silly and polarising, which serves no one, not even me, myself and I.

What other issues are there?

Well for me that is pretty much it. I believe that access needs to be monitored and no one beside the Intelligence community should have access and that will, at present not be a given. However, I am very much in favour of the press not getting access at all. Yet, the article by Paul Farrell seems to be written with the ‘intent’ to instil fear. A fear we should not get into, for the very reason that it is fear that they are trying to remove and is achieved by people not looking over their shoulder, especially a group of journalists who seem to give into appeasing advertisers, the one group we do not want to see anywhere near these amounts of data.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as ASIO, Community, DSD, GCHQ, Intelligence, intelligence community, Julia gillard, Julian Disney, Kevin rudd, NSA, Paul Farrell, Prof Julian Disney AO, Scott Ludlam, the Guardian, Tim Mathieson, UNSW, UTS

September 30, 2014 · 22:57

Thriving Team Tesco?

Another day, and another moment where we see the Guardian (amongst others) giving us more news on the corporation Tesco. I will be honest, I have a soft spot for Tesco, the moment issues became visible both the CEO and CLO went all out keeping everyone in the loop. It started exactly a week ago, someone miscounted 250 million to coin a phrase. People were removed and all kinds of actions were started. A few days ago in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/28/tesco-crisis-doesnt-add-up) we see additional information.

So what can be done?

First of all, we need to take one additional look at a few items. You see, as stated more than once, I am not an economist. Now I know that minus 250 million is not a small amount, yet, the article states “its profits for the first six months of the year would be some £250m lower than the £1.1bn previously indicated“, which means that they are still getting 750 million in profits, which is a lot. So why is Blackrock ‘suddenly’ pulling out like that? The shares will bounce back! That is at the heart, the fact that the shares took such a tumble, whilst making a decent profit. Let us also keep in mind that the investigation is still ongoing. I touch on one side in ‘Double Jeopardy!‘ on September 27th, less than a day before this Guardian article. In there I ask the question “I stated before, what if this was not about the event, but about the orchestration?” Is that what is going on? It is a sincere question, I do not know, yet for a company to have a lesser profit, there would be consequences, yet would it be to the extent we are seeing here? Seems like a massive overreaction in my view.

Now let us get back to the article.

“The chairman has been the leader of this organisation that seems to have failed at every turn, was the assessment of David Herro, chief executive of US fund manager Harris Associates“, perhaps this is true, yet he is not there alone, why are the other members of the board not speaking out? This is not a boys club where you wash my back and I wash yours….real hard!

So, there seems to be a few issues, yet, this is at the top, so this means we are looking into several layers before we get to lower management. Either they have no clue, or they do not care. I am actually puzzled by the thought on what might be worse. What is a given is that Tesco is bleeding. Unlike those paperback investors, I like a puzzle and I want to solve it. How can this be turned around? First of all, to create places of peace, certain issues need to change, with the unemployment numbers, these people can either get on board, or leave the company. Greed will be stricken. Which means that this quote “The list includes disputing or delaying payment of invoices for more than 120 days; cutting a product’s price and then demanding compensation to maintain the profit margin; and demanding upfront payments in exchange for hitting sales targets that do not materialise” this can no longer be a method of operation. To get Tesco safe, the board will need to change methodology and remove anyone who is not on board; in addition, payment delays should be trimmed back to no more than 60 days. It is just absurd to get payments settled outside of the quarter to that extent. To truly become a contender, why not revamp Tesco Mobile? iiNet went from ‘seems to exist‘ to the number two in the Australian market by offering ACTUAL deals they left the rest behind them almost overnight, this means a mobile, not unlike the current offers, but with 1Gb data at £19.90 a month, Now we are starting to build a customer group! As I look at the different business groups, Dave Lewis might want to change a massive option, if they allow for the iiNet approach in the UK, Tesco Mobile could become more than a contender. Some might say that at this point it is not a good idea to make large changes. I disagree, this is the best time! As some of the rats are leaving the ship, why not upgrade the ship from cargo vessel with passengers, into a ferry with a large cargo hold. As you grow the passenger, all needing your cargo, you will offer a massive footprint with a loyal based cloud transporter. London is one of the largest mobile workforces on the planet. Use this as consumer strength!

There are a few more Australian approaches that could rock the foundation and make the future a stronger reality. It starts by changing the entire premise on how business is done. The Tesco bank seems to have overlooked options for both funeral insurance as well as the Wester Union approach, which many banks are overlooking, yet such a presence to such a service makes perfect sense in a shopping mall/supermarket. Consider that Western Union made over 5 billion in the last year, this gets us a net profit of around 14%. In the end good business is where you find it!

There are a few other options, but overall. There are several things Tesco can do, even if it was for the sheer fun of seeing Blackrock lose out on a good deal. If profits were lower than now this presently seems to be a likely fact. The reaction that some have now pushed for seems too much overkill, especially when you realise that they are measuring events and Tesco is in trouble, but not in the size and scope that Neil Woodford and Blackrock seem to imply it to be. Consider that Blackrock has over 4.5 trillion dollars in Assets under management. 250 million seems like a mere drop in the ocean. So, that there is no misunderstanding! The assets under managements represent 4,500 billion, the adjustment for Tesco is 0.25 billion,

Yet, instead of whinging about that part, why can we not do something to strengthen the Tesco position? It is all good and fine to be the sideline quarterback and comment on every aspect of the game, but what can be done to get the game going and to improve the game? One idea is to see if the Australian iiNet solution could work in the UK. It is only one of the options and that would lower mobile expense tensions by a roughly stated 57%, so the numbers are all on a level where the top 6 mobile and broadband providers will feel a new level of pain as they see their people run towards the upgraded Tesco Mobile provider.

It would be a start, but will it be enough?

No matter what we do and the amount of ‘more’ we create, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. How a company decided to run without a CFO for that long will be cause for questions, and perhaps even cause for investigations into criminal negligence. Consider that a company is set to structure, order and reporting pressures, how can a firm be without a CFO for six months? This is not at the heart of the matter, yet there is an overall level of concern in that mere part of the entire mess. In addition the quote “Although the investigation into Tesco has only just begun, analysts think the Albert Heijn scandal, which had woeful corporate governance and aggressive earnings management at its heart, provides an interesting history lesson, if nothing else.” Is that enough? There is an overly eagerness to appease shareholders and stakeholders far beyond the point of acceptability. If you consider opposing that (which might be valid), then consider how the numbers had been inflated by 29% just to keep the wealthy masses happy.

So, improving Tesco will require another level of changes. That part is seen in the Guardian article by Aditya Chakrabortty (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/tesco-accountants-auditors). It is quite a witty style of writing and well worth the read. One of the more interesting quotes was “He found a bunch of men well aware of the boredom of the audit and of the shortcuts they were forced to make“, so how does that work when we consider “Tesco paid PwC £10.4m in the last financial year – plus another £3.6m for other consultancy work“. Was that not enough? You see, this reminds me of some conversations I had in the 90’s. How short sighted Americans truly believed how business can grow, with the same staff, by 20% annually. Prices had to remain the same, to remain competitive. But as short sighted as they were (being sales people); they forgot that the time of a consultant is finite. It is measured in time (you know, that pesky 60 minutes in an hour scale), so as they are set at 90% billable, it means that by year three you’ll have to work an average of 57 hours a week (whilst getting paid 40 hours). It seems that there are levels of short cuts set into place to get results completed, whilst there is no proper investigation on the amount of work that needs to be covered. It is only one cog in the entire failing machine and if Tesco is to stand up from this, illustrating and changing the entire approach to how accountancy is done seems like a logical next step, especially considering that the PWC pass never spotted 29% of inflation somehow.

It is my opinion that the entire system has been duct taped for far too long. This now falls back onto the desk of the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.

You might ask why.

It is clear that Tesco is the most visible one, but I feel 99.5336% certain (roughly) that they are not the only one. As the British Cabinet minister responsible for all economic and financial matters, it stands to reason that if the economic recovery is to be preserved and maintained, we will need to make certain that not too many sheep fall of the paddock. This means taking a look into these regulations and more important, if (according to the article) 90% of all audits is done by the big four, seeing 25% fall of the reservation should be ample reason to forego sleep for the foreseeable future (sorry, Mr Osborne, that is why they pay you the extra £26.90 a week!).

It is clear that actions need to be taken, but it is also pretty curious how there is a massive amount of bashing on Tesco, whilst PWC is not getting the spotlight as much, can anyone explain that? Let’s be clear here, it is very possible that this is all due whilst PWC has not been involved at all, so this is not about their optional guilt, it is however valid to ask how some involved thought of pulling this off, it seems that a whistle-blower started all this, yet did no one else notice, did PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers) have ZERO visibility that something was going on? And, let me be clear, it is very possible that nothing was visible at their last audit, which means that these systems had to be orchestrated and specifically edited to not raise flags, mainly because 250,000,000 is just too much, it would require over 5 billion rounding issues for this to be validly invisible, I reckon we can ignore the likelihood of the latter scenario.

Can Tesco become a team again? Yes, but it requires a massive sanitation of the board of directors as well as the higher managers. One final thought here, they were without a CFO for 6 months, was number two in that hierarchy (whomever reported to the CFO) not on the list, the longer I consider the facts and the numbers, the more I feel that this has been going on for some time to inflate something to this amount, did previous audits not pick anything up?

Can Tesco be a team again? Yes, but compartmentalisation needs to be removed, there needs to be overlap of high directors as well as a fundamental change in communications.

Can Tesco thrive again? I would think so if the previous two points are dealt with and adding the iiNet solution to Tesco might be needed sooner rather than later.

By the way, Mr Lewis, if you read this, consider that this mess came about whilst Philip Clarke made £1,171,000 a year, I reckon that my good insights and ideas are worth a mere 20%, especially if my Tesco mobile solution helps you gain more momentum in the mobile field.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Aditya Chakrabortty, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Dave Lewis, David Herro, Double Jeopardy, George Osborne, Harris Associates, iiNet, Philip Clarke, Price Waterhouse Coopers, PwC, Tesco, Tesco Mobile, the Guardian

September 29, 2014 · 22:50

Vindication

Today is turning out to be a nice day after all. I have made mention on more than one occasion that I am not an economist, I am an analyst and for some time now, the numbers have not been adding up. Certain action had been taken and they never made sense. The issue I had is that because the press seemed not to dig into this gave a decent amount of persuasion that I might have been wrong, which would have been fair enough, yet I know data, I lived data for decades and the numbers just did not add up.

Yesterday I saw a first glimpse, and today there is now a clear indication that I had been right all along. Goldman Sachs had been a part of a lot more than many can fathom. So whilst Cuppa Joe and the press at large has all been about the ‘naughty’ intelligence branch, they all ignored the trap behind it and let the banks do whatever they damn well liked.

One step back

The first inkling was Goldman Sachs directly in my blog ‘Banks, eunuchs of a new congregation‘ of February 7^th 2013, more than 1.5 years ago! In there I gave this quote: “It is almost that there is a voice whispering in the ear of Dutch Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem. The whispers seem to be about the Bad Bank and the whispers could involve Goldman Sachs” and “This thought was also mentioned by Rolfe Winkler at the New York Daily News. How is it even possible that a company that seems to have been one of the major reasons for the financial meltdown be regarded, or even ALLOWED to make any continued presence?“, this would get followed by my blog ‘The Italian menace?‘ on February 10^th, 3 days later. “Berlusconi, who said he won’t seek the executive position but rather prefers to become Finance Minister, has seduced the masses saying he will repeal a property tax imposed by Monti, returning about €4 billion“. These elements are all in league with one massive step. As these members are directly linked to Goldman Sachs. Not just Berlusconi, it is also Mario Monti who has direct links to Goldman Sachs (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html). The independent article shows even more, steps that I had not looked at (for various reasons). Yet, overall Goldman Sachs has been keeping their fingers in all these pies.

In the near past

As we look at the events in the near past I wrote ‘Two deadly sins‘. It was November 27^th 2013. There we see the following quote “After the issues we had seen in the last 3 years, I started to doubt the correctness of the Dow (and I reported on that in past blogs). It goes up and up, but with JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, VISA, American Express putting pressures on those numbers, the three big boys (drugs) could rock the boat in a massive way, which scares Wall Street to no extent. Greed and Treason, it is all connected and it hits us all critically hard sooner rather than later!” I had no idea that I was so much closer to it all then I thought. That part has just been made clear!

Now

The Huffington post (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/28/elizabeth-warren-new-york-fed_n_5896778.html), has just release this article stating that “Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) are both calling for Congress to investigate the New York Federal Reserve Bank after recently released secret recordings show the central bank allegedly going light on firms it was supposed to regulate“, but there is more, like a bad infomercial from TV we see the added flavours that would silence Dante Alighieri and reduce Niccolo Machiavelli to a mere checkers player when we consider the additional quote “Segarra says that she was fired from her job in 2012 for refusing to overlook Goldman’s lack of a conflict of interest policy and other questionable practices that should have brought tougher regulatory scrutiny“. So, this was NOT just the banks, this seems to imply that the US government themselves have been linked to the massive degrees of freedom that Goldman Sachs has been enjoying. So that leaves us with the thought that the EEC is not enjoying any freedoms at all, it is enjoying the allowance to decide on how much they all are in debt to Goldman Sachs and whatever is behind them. Because, a choice of one is not a choice, it is a directive and now we see the amount of people that have been involved in orchestrating all this.

I wonder if the mentioned 48 hours of taped conversations will ever make it into the daylight, chances are that this will get locked up real fast. As the American people were so smitten with a joke called Snowden, they all got played into the side where the banks were given freedom of movement through all this and the press at large did NOTHING to truly look into the dangers their populations faced, it is the ultimate Machiavellian play.

I particularly liked this quote “In one instance, she said she alerted a colleague that a senior compliance officer at Goldman had said that the bank’s view was that “once clients became wealthy enough, certain consumer laws didn’t apply to them.” Segarra claims that her New York Fed colleagues asked her to ignore the remark and change meeting minutes she had taken, which contained evidence of what the Goldman executive said“, which basically means that the rich do not just get a free play in the game, they remain unaccountable beyond a certain point. Did we who will never be rich sign up for that? I have no issue with people becoming rich, providing it is through non-criminal ways, yet the fact that this also implies non-accountability to the law is an entirely different matter. If you think that this is not an issue, then wonder what a firm like Microsoft is getting away with or Goldman Sachs for that matter. It is easy to remain unaccountable when the lawmakers are in your pockets.

Recently

Now this all links to another party, who only recently got visible thanks to a ‘dubious’ ideologist as he exposed the Swedish left winged system. I am talking about Natixis! Its assets exceeds well over half a trillion dollars, not bad for a French bank! Why are they here? You see, I always saw that there was more to Goldman Sachs, yet as my stories were never explicitly about Goldman Sachs, but about events that involved them, Goldman Sachs was clearly on my radar. Natixis until the Swedish election was not, nor needed it to be. Yet when we look at their Portfolio of Investments – as of December 31, 2013, we see that they are linked to the bulk of large corporations and their financial needs. They also have a nice little chunk of Goldman Sachs. Now we have a race, because together they hold over 1.5 trillion in assets. Are we all awake now?

Two corporations with the power to shift, change and pressure government oversight in America and pretty much the entire European Economic Community, is more than just a nuisance. Remember how Goldman Sachs promised (read threatened) to transfer a substantial part of their European business from London to a Eurozone location – the most obvious contenders being Paris and Frankfurt. It was a statement by Michael Sherwood, co-chief executive of Goldman Sachs International (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/04/goldman-sachs-warns-london-exit-britain-eu), at this point we get to wonder whether it was a business decision, or whether it was a phone call from a person with direct access to the ear of the President of the United States (yes the last part is an assumption on my side, but is it such a wild one?), if any of this is ever confirmed, I reckon that this is the one straw that breaks parliaments back and results in a shift of power to Ukip so fast it will make all the heads in Whitehall spin.

This is just the parts I got a hold on, I feel certain that a REAL investigative journalist (if one still exists) would have been able to find a lot more, yet nothing has made the papers in this regards for close to two years. You should really start to ask the question why!

Because, when we see the press entrap MP’s with fake profiles, whilst ignoring these levels of power, then the press has failed on so many levels it is not even funny anymore.

Tomorrow

Today is the start to plan for the questions that many should be asking government and the press tomorrow, the press because they seem to be asleep at the wheel, asleep that two companies have so much power that they can set the entire political tone. Freedom has never been about this. Freedom lost, because of what I regard to be cowardly (and possibly greed driven) politicians who are enabling a group to be flaccid economists to empower wealth and greed and condemn us to consumer based slavery until our numbers are no longer balanced as profitable.

How can we ever attain a better life, or in regards to the links that I recently discovered any form of a healthy life at all? Will be see vindication, but who in the end gets vindicated is an entirely different discussion.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as American Express, Berlusconi, Community, Dante Alighieri, Dutch Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Edward Snowden, EEC, Elizabeth Warren, Goldman Sachs, Intelligence, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, JP Morgan Chase, Mario Monti, Michael Sherwood, Natixis, New York Daily News, New York Federal Reserve Bank, Niccolo Machiavelli, President of the United States, Rolfe Winkler, Segarra, Sherrod Brown, Swedish, the Huffington Post, The Independent, UKIP, VISA, voice, Wall Street

September 29, 2014 · 19:53

How to (un)screw an MP

We have seen a fair collection of choices and changes that adds up towards the life and makings of a situation. If diplomacy fails, you extend it into war. If the statistical answer does not match, you change the question and when you are unable to remain a journalist, you create it through entrapment.

This is what we are confronted with today as we see the header “Sunday Mirror under pressure to reveal details of Tory minister ‘sexting’ sting” (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/28/sunday-mirror-pressure-reveal-details-tory-minister-sexting-sting-brooks-newmark). So as labour sees their political chances fall further and further, we see a labour based paper having a go at the Tories. Now, to be fair, having a go at Tories from a newspaper point of view is not wrong (I am one for the most myself), conservative publications have a go at labour, so I reckon when it is news, then we can state that all is fair in love and political envy. Yet, when the Lloyd Embley machine starts creating it through entrapment, we get another thing entirely.

So what happened?

“The reporter, who is not on the staff of the Sunday Mirror, created a fictional account of ‘Sophie Wittams’ on Twitter, which has since been deleted, and appears to have contacted at least six Conservative MPs including the latest Ukip defector, Mark Reckless“. So the Lloyd Embley machine seems to have played a game involving an exchange of explicit photographs. The quote “Newmark, who owns the investment firm Telesis Management and whose wealth was estimated at £3.2m in 2009, was contacted by ‘Sophie’, before engaging in a series of flirtatious messages and photograph exchanges“, so if this is exchange, whose photos were used?

It seems that the press still cannot get a grip on accountability. I personally think that it is time for the Lloyd Embley machine to feel the brunt of their utter ignorance (or let’s just call it greed based bashing). Instead of going just for a fine, how about shutting down the paper for let’s say three weeks? This means that those with subscriptions will get an alternative paper for three weeks (paid by the Trinity Mirror group). Now let’s see when money stops in its tracks, whether the editors get a firm wake up call.

There is more to this. It seems that even after the phone hacking scandal and after some of these so called journalists claimed that they can police themselves, we see more and more evidence that they can do nothing of the sort. These transgressions just show the essential need for the entire Leveson recommendation to be passed, which makes this new event upsetting to a fair amount of people.

So how about looking at this from the other side using a series of articles that the Mirror MUST publish on page one and it has to be an independent journalist chosen by the Conservative party. That journalist will get the ENTIRE page one, so no ads anywhere on that page.

Wouldn’t that just ‘sting’ the labour paper?

It is the last quote that is actually the most upsetting “A spokesman from Ipso said: “Ipso will look into any complaint about the story concerned if any such complaint is submitted.”“. This seems to clearly indicate that IPSO is utterly toothless (as implied by me in a previous blog) and as such might end up not being of any use, which was pretty much what the people of hacked off claimed IPSO to be. Now consider that IPSO starts their own webpage with this statement “IPSO is the new independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. We uphold the highest standards of journalism by monitoring and maintaining the standards set out in the Editors’ Code of Practice“. Is that so?

Consider the Crimes Act 1900 for NSW, where we see at Part 5A False and misleading information, which holds section 307b/307c.

A person is guilty of an offence if (partial extraction as these parts seems to have been proven already):

(a) the person makes a statement (whether orally, in a document or in any other way), and
(b) the person does so knowing that, or reckless as to whether, the statement:
(i) is false or misleading, or
(ii) omits any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading, and
(c) the statement is made in connection with an application for an authority or benefit

The result is: Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years, or a fine of 200 penalty units, or both.

So why is the so called ‘reporter’ not arrested?

What was the name of the ‘journalist’?

Is the paper now obstructing justice? All fair questions I would state. Now, I used the Australian version of the Crimes Act, yet I feel at present decently certain that the UK has similar rules.

Whilst getting creative I considered the issues of consent, even though it reflects on sexual assault, we could argue that the MP got screwed by a journalist. So was there consent? Well Section 61HA (5) tells us ‘A person does not consent‘, where ‘(a) under a mistaken belief as to the identity of the other person‘, which is proven as the woman in the images was never part of this. In addition there is subtopic c, which states ‘under any other mistaken belief about the nature of the act induced by fraudulent means‘, well fraudulent means is certainly the case here, so again the paper loses out. In reality, these parts do not apply as there was no real penetration (as described in the Crimes Act 1900), yet the MP got screwed then he got hosed, so I reckon we can be flexible here as IPSO seems to have little intent of keeping the highest standards, just me observing those who do not meet them, which we get from their own quote.

As the Criminal Act 1900 NSW talks about penetration, there are a few issues here, yet as this is the UK, they have a few other sides, as they will use the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I will not go into it, because Matthew Scott, who has the ‘Barrister Blogger’, has quite the article on it (at http://barristerblogger.com/2014/09/28/tricked-sex-fraud-sunday-mirrors-sting-brookes-newmark-criminal/)

I see news coming in regards to monitoring on how we have a right to speak, how we should have privacy, but what about accountability? If the press cannot be held accountable whilst they engage in unadulterated entrapment, should we even be allowed an internet? So, how does that relate? We seem to think that we can do whatever pleases us in a form of freedom of opinion, no matter how false the statements are. We are all de-evolving into a state of anarchy and chaos. If there is a path that leads somewhere then it might be open to debate, but that is not the case. Whilst we ‘bicker’ over how we can speak about everything, we leave big business unchecked to do what they want and leave us without anything.

I have made several observations on a failing press, whilst no one is taking notice on how we never had any rights in the first place. How these ‘holier than though‘ editors seem to regard harlotry above integrity, my evidence in this? The User agreement changes Sony pushed through a week before the release of the PS4 ‘Pricing a Sony game!‘ on November 20^th 2013, the list goes on, but this is not about advertising my blog, or revisiting too many old articles.

Because as we see the events unfurl, we now have a new iteration of information as the daily mail is mulling over all that information and these photographs again. It is there where we find these two final quotes: “And criminal barrister Matthew Scott wrote on his blog yesterday: ‘What conceivable public interest was served by tricking Mr Newmark in this way?” Well in my opinion there was no public interest, it is a clear cut slam bash from a labour based paper to have a go at a conservative.

And “Lloyd Embley, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror, defended the story after former BBC journalist Sue Llewellyn claimed it was ‘unethical’. He tweeted: ‘1) it wasn’t a Mirror sting 2) there’s a nailed-on public interest.’“, my response? It was a mirror sting. From the current information this came from a reporter not employed by the Mirror, which means that in my view you Lloyd Embley are directly responsible and accountable! You see, if you are not, then this means that you are not really an editor (they tend to know EVERYTHING that happens at their newspaper), which makes you redundant! In the second, there is at present direct indication that these events follow from criminal activities. In that we get a nice last issue as presented by the Press Complaints Commission “iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation“.

Yes, now consider that it is the press themselves that is knowingly misleading the public in the most intentional way!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Barrister Blogger, BBC, Crimes Act 1900, IPSO, Lloyd Embley, Mark Reckless, Matthew Scott, PCC, Press Complaints Commission, PS4, Sexual Offences Act 2003, Sony, Sophie Wittams, Sue Llewellyn, the Daily Mail, the daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Sunday Mirror, UKIP

September 26, 2014 · 21:23

For our spies only!

It’s out in the open, apparently Australia will get its first feel of a ‘cold war’, which according to Attorney General Brandis, will be a lot worse, will it?

Let us take a look.

The first source is the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/spy-agencies-to-get-stronger-powers-but-what-exactly-will-they-be), as I am all about a certain level of consistency, let us add a few quotes. “Crossbench senators and many stakeholders raised their concern that, in the absence of a clear definition of a computer network, a single warrant could be used to access a wide range of computers, given the internet is a network of networks” as well as the response to the greens who wanted to add a limit of 20. “Brandis said such an amendment “would impose an arbitrary, artificial and wholly unworkable limitation that would frustrate the ability of Asio to perform its statutory functions“.

These are both fair points, in regards to the sunset clause the response was “No. Brandis rejected a call to put a 10-year expiry date on the new law related to special intelligence operations, despite agreeing to similar sorts of sunset clauses in the yet-to-be-debated foreign fighters bill“.

And the fourth quote, which we need later on is ““Freedom is not a given,” the attorney general said. “A free society is not the usual experience of mankind. Freedom must be secured, and particularly at a time when those who would destroy our freedoms are active, blatant and among us”“.

So, this sounds fine and it all sounds viable, but what about the dangers here (are there even dangers)?

For those with some insight in law, here is the bill as it currently stands (at http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s969_first-senate/toc_pdf/1417820.pdf), which for the most is an amendment to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/series/c2004a02123).

Initially, it seemed that there was an issue on page 76, yet, when we look at the final product, the change makes perfect sense. The first change here is the approach to information; basically, we will not have a weaky leaky speaky person. So we will (hopefully) not have an issue with some person dreaming to be on team Manning, Snowden and Moronic. It was so nice of the NSA to get into ‘hot’ water, so that we can prevent it. However, not all is well; this is seen (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/sep/26/internet-threat-existence-video). Whether it was just bad form, or over generalisation, Senator Glenn Lazarus stated “The internet is a serious threat because it can be used to orchestrate and undertake criminal behaviour across the world“. He then continues how ASIO and ASIS are there to increase security. It is this slight casual quote that seems to voice the dangers, as these powers are needed to combat security threats of several shapes. Yet the senator states “orchestrate and undertake criminal behaviour“, which is a lot broader then initially implied. This does not mean that this will be used as such, and quite honestly, if it stops shady financial advisors, then I am all fine with that, but it goes further than that as it was voiced (not stating the reality will be as such). Another part of the Guardian showed the ‘grilling’ of Attorney General Brandis by Senator Scott Ludlam, yet it seems that there the kettle is off the boil too. The Senator knew that Brandis would not answer or resort to speculation. He stated “I am not going to indulge Senator Ludlam by answering hypothetical cases or cases of historical interest“, which is fair enough. The Senator should know that, when he did a similar thing on October 4^th 2013.

So where is the fire and is there a fire? You see, what is happening now, is what should have been done some time ago. I oppose Brendan Molloy from Pirate Bay (a fellow student), but his heart is in the right place (top right behind the rib cage, just like mine) and all these posters we see all over the place in regards to whatever, whenever, forever and prison. It is nice that we see all these posters on dangers and so on, yet some people seem to ignore the debilitating blows the US suffered at the hands of Manning and Snowden, not to mention Jullian Assange (which I will not go into at present). This will now change. At times those who don’t know speak those who know remain silent. It is when those who know speak out, that is when the casualties really go into many digits and Australia has its own brand of security issues. America has a little over 19,000 border miles on an area occupied by 320 million people. Australia seems larger, with a 22,000 border miles coastal line, yet overall Australia only has 22 million people, so with a population less than 10% we have to play the game another way. The security measures are one way, not the only way, but it will possibly stem several issues, which gives our intelligence branches a little more time to figure it out. Let us not forget that we have an intelligence structure and a form of Signal Intelligence, but if you think that they get a serious chunk of cash, then consider that the total Australian intelligence budget is a little under 1% of what America gets, and we get to look at a similar sized chunk of land to observe and a lot less people.

This got me to two issues that are now forming, yet the bill seems to not cover it as such. I am referring to the Telecommunications (Interception and access) Act 1979. Intelligence is essential, so is data collection and analyses. What happens when new solutions are needed? What happens when we face a change? The US had this when they needed more efficiency for the buck and a system called Palantir was used in the tests. Like Deployable Ground Station (DGS), the army ended up with a version known as DCGS-A. Now we get off to the races, the initially optional new system Palantir, its software was rated as easier to use (not unlike the analytical tool IBM Modeller), but did not have the flexibility and wide number of data sources of DCGS-A, which now gets us into hot water, or what the London Chef of Sketch might classify as: ‘from the frying pan into the fire’, these changes will also impact other systems and other people. In many cases the use of a NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) is used (or in many cases Positive Vetting). The entire mess (slight exaggeration), will take on new forms as we see how the changes might also have a flaw (as I see it), what happens when there is a sudden spike of collected data. Scripts, automation, production jobs and moreover the gathering, sifting and storing of data will soon take an entirely new dimension. The current intelligence framework is in my humble opinion not even close to ready for a growth in excess of 400% (800% is more realistic). You see, if we are to set up a path that gives us a possible trace of events, then we need several snapshots, now, they will not snapshot the entire nation, but the amount of data that needs to be stored so that the people who need to know can follow the trace will be a massive one. I for one, am absolutely not in the mood to allow a ‘3^rd party’ (read IBM, Oracle and a few others) to set up shop, as that data could even end up in America. Even though I have no issue with my data, feel free to check my Diablo 3 save file guys! The issue is when a grey field allows other uses. For this I recall the article ‘NSA linked to corporate dangers?‘, which I wrote on September 22^nd 2013 (Yes, a year ago!), where I quoted the NSA site (the open source unclassified part), “The Information Assurance Business Affairs Office (BAO) is the focal point for IA partnerships with industry. It also provides guidance to vendors and the NSA workforce in establishing IA business relationships and cultivates partnerships with commercial industry through demonstrations and technical exchanges“.

So when we see such an escalation, how long until we see an ‘evolution’ of our intelligence data to create a business space? Let’s be honest upfront, the NSA has a different charter and as such has a massive amount of additional tasks, yet in the current form, is such an evolution that far-fetched? How dishonest is the advantage when a firm like Telstra or iiNet gets their greedy little marketing claws on data so verbose that they can target 10%-20% more ‘efficient’? So we have 2 sides and as far as I see it an element that might need tweaking because of it (reference to the: Telecommunications (Interception and access) Act 1979). The entire Data mining issue is also on the table as I have not met an abundance of miners who have my levels of skill when it comes to massive data sets. When the pressure is on and they need to create a creative alternative to a missing values data set, the race will be pretty much over. Then what? Get external experts?

Now we go back to the initial fourth statement ““Freedom is not a given,” the attorney general said. “A free society is not the usual experience of mankind. Freedom must be secured, and particularly at a time when those who would destroy our freedoms are active, blatant and among us”“. I do not oppose the statement perse, yet in my view the statement is “Freedom is a given in Australia, to keep the Australian values, in a time and under conditions that were designed to remove the tranquillity of our lives, steps must be taken to safeguard the freedom we hold dear. As such we need to act according to new paths for the sole purpose of stopping these elements amongst us, who are driven to remove freedoms, we and all those who came here to enjoy our way of life“.

Freedom remains a given, we will just add a few new solutions to stop those intent on destroying our lives and our freedoms!

In the end, both the Attorney General and myself decided to make Pappas Bravas, he said potato, I said tomato, yet I remain at present cautious on who else is eating from our plate, without the balance of the whistle blower, that person might remain undetected, in that regard, I would have preferred that a clear location would be there to alert someone, even if it was a special appointed judge (who would be added in subsection “(4) The persons to whom information may be communicated under subsection (3) are the following:”

Was that such a stretch?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as ASIO, ASIS, Attorney General Brandis, Australia, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, Brendan Molloy, Chelsea Manning, DCGS-A, Deployable Ground Station, DGS, Diablo 3, Edward Snowden, IBM Modeller, Information Assurance Business Affairs Office, Jullian Assange, London, NDA, NSA, NSA linked to corporate dangers?, Palantir, Positive Vetting, PV, Senator Glenn Lazarus, Senator Ludlam, Senator Scott Ludlam, SIGINT, Signal Intelligence, Sketch

September 24, 2014 · 21:12

Are they the real losers?

Yes, it is a nice new day and to be quite honest, I feel ashamed that fellow gamers and fellow men on the internet are starting to show that many are the type of person, real man are disgusted to know.

Let’s have a look at the facts lately. First we get the 101 naked celebrities, which, fair enough could have been done by any over enthusiastic (read: horny) teenager. That does not make it OK or any way acceptable. Then we get the persecution of Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn for the most ridiculous of reasons and now, because an actress speaks out for all women, you know, through that usage of ‘freedom of expression‘, she now gets haunted by hackers, posting her stolen images (because she was wearing not that much) to scare her and to ridicule her and finally there was Caroline Criado-Perez who had a really nice idea and got threatened because of voicing the idea.

You see, I am very willing to do something about it, but I am not that good a hacker. I can remove them with a sniper rifle pretty efficiently, but that gets me into hot water (the Crimes Act of NSW 1900 gets a bit iffy at this point) the police seems unable to do anything about the victims, but the hackers will apparently have all the rights to protection and privacy. I am willing to test these rights.

So, here I throw down the gauntlet! Because, I am sick of these cowards feeling safe and secure. I challenge these groups of so called ‘greater than life‘ hackers to prove their greatness and find those hackers who did this to Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Emma Watson and Caroline Criado-Perez. I think the people (and me) have a right to know, so I challenge the hackers to find them, post the evidence as well as their identity and address on all places, as well as 4chan. If the press is so into ‘the people have a right to know‘ then let’s find out who they are. It would also be nice to know who hacked the celebrity mobiles and add those names and identities too.

Let us find out whether there are real men amongst those hackers, who would like to get recognised as the man who gave us the names of these hiding cowards. If these people claim a right to ‘privacy’, let us recall a tweet that was send to Caroline Criado-Perez. The tweet ended with “NO MEANS YES“, let us test that theory!

You see, I reckon that once they are out in the open, the game changes. Their neighbours will point at them. Those guys in school who were always smitten with Hermione Granger will want to prove to their hero actress that they will stand up for her. These fathers living nearby who have seen their darling daughter cry because she got bullied, will feel the rage of violence boil their blood when they spot them. I wonder how secure their confidence is during the day when they all know who they are.

Did you, the threatener and abuser consider that?

When we look at the piece in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2014/sep/23/hackers-tried-silence-emma-watson-naked-photos-but-made-her-voice-louder), we see an article that is decent, but substandard. It gives us a psychology part and some referencing, which is how I saw it. Of course the daily star front cover was there. There was a part I did really like. The quote was “Emma Watson did not talk to the UN about the need for equality because all forms of gender discrimination have been eradicated from our world. She spoke about it because every day, in every country, women face violence, abuse or just plain old ignorance”, yet this was countered by the quote that follows “Much as we’ll cheer for the underdog in a sports match, in real life we don’t want them to defend themselves”, which I found offensive. Of course the debate then becomes whether that statement has any truth. You see, if we truly believed that, we would be outspoken about it. The reality is that those acting out against it are cowards, like those old white men in white outfits with burning crosses (KKK reference). These people hold their believe in the dark corners, where no one can see who they truly are, which is why I want these ‘hackers’ out in the open. I am truly curious what we will find and whether we see some crying father on how his son was misled and it was all one big misunderstanding.

The second article http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/sep/23/feminists-rally-emma-watson-4chan-nude-photo-threats is also decent, but I had a huge issue with the title ‘Feminists rally round Emma Watson after 4chan nude pictures threats‘. I personally believe that the title ‘All real man and real women go to bat for UN spokesperson under siege‘. That would be the title that wakes up nations! Let’s be clear, this is not because she looks nice, is pretty or an actress. I felt the same way when we saw the utter injustice that befell Caroline Criado-Perez.

The question is how to deal with these people, because they are tearing at the foundation of our freedom, not just the woman, the men are in equal danger. If you doubt this, then ask the father of Emma, the parents of Caroline. Do you have a daughter? It could even be a son, what happens when your child speaks out against injustice? Then what do we do? Let them be victims to some coward, who does not believe in their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression or their support to a person they ‘hate’.

I believe that they fear the light and accountability, so let’s give them some bright light to bake under. Even though the intelligence community has a few other priorities, can you guys (NSA, GCHQ, DSD, DGSE and FAPSI) make it into a competition (perhaps for your interns)? The first correct publication is worth 4 gold stars, second place gets 2 gold stars and third gets one star and the rest will have to fend for the next round. Like a hacker Olympics for signal intelligence.

Seems like a harmless enough sport and let’s face it, the hacker wants a challenge, he/she is baiting you to find them! Are you, the upcoming SIGINT officers of the future up to the challenge?

But I very much liked the quote in the end: ““All I can say Emma, is: fuck them,” wrote Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett“, she took the words right out of my mouth!

UPDATE:

At 21:00 the games changed a little. It seems that the threats against Emma Watson were a viral marketing ploy. (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/emma-watson-threats-actually-stunt-to-shut-down-4chan/5766882). In my mind there is no change, the others were victims of harassment and psychic assault. Yet, these issues have other issues too. You see, the origin of 4chan was nice, clean and pure. It was altered by some to be used in other ways. It was the brainwave of the then 15 year old Christopher Poole who was into Japanese comics and anime. there is a lot more to 4chan. I found a reference to ‘A 21-year-old man was arrested after 4chan had provided the police with the IP address of the poster.’, so 4chan is more then just trollers and hackers. Which makes the actions of the company Rantic more then just a little dubious. Yet all is not clear there either as the ABC has one excellent quote “The #shutdown4chan hashtag gained some momentum on Twitter, but some users raised concerns that it aimed to eclipse conversation about Watson’s gender equality speech“, which beckons the thought, what exactly is going on and perhaps 4chan is not the nuisance, but the saviour for the message that prevails with #heforshe and whether they could do something extra to spread the message Emma Watson had for all people visiting the internet.

So was my article right or wrong? In the end, the issue I had remains and remains clearly. The press acted directly and corrected as soon as they had the information, the question becomes what about the other victims?

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Law, Media, Military

Tagged as 101 naked celebrities, 4chan, Anita Sarkeesian, Caroline Criado-Perez, Crimes Act of NSW 1900, DGSE, DSD, Emma Watson, FAPSI, GCHQ, Hermione Granger, NSA, Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, SIGINT, the Guardian, Zoe Quinn

September 23, 2014 · 10:58

Tesco, the Lehman way

It’s all the buzz
It’s all the rage
What Lehman did once
On a grocery stage

So cabbage that cherry
and settle that sprout
and if you want balance
you’ll fall on your snout

So be not afraid
for them closing the doors
bring coins to Tesco
250 million and it’s yours!

Yes, another day in the works for the CFO’s of the world. Did anyone imagine, when the Lehman brothers had their methods of inflating their economy it would be all the rage. So much so that it would even come to a grocery near you?

Well, as we see the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/22/tesco-investigators-overstating-profit-250m) announces how Tesco overestimated their profit. Let’s be honest, 250,000,000 is just a number, if you say it really fast it doesn’t seem like much (you should actually really try to say it fast 5 times).

Now, they will fork out additional costs as they have requested DeLoite and Freshfields to take a look at all this.

It would be nice to bash them ‘board’ members around a little more, but it seems unfair because when we see Dave Lewis and how open he is on what has transpired, we should wonder what comes next. The fact that he was alerted by the CLO only adds to the confusion here. Not confusion in a bad way, but actual confusion. First of all, let’s have a round of applause (seriously!), for Dave Lewis to bring this out into the open. I believe that it will remove pressures and I feel certain that the body blow the stock gave them will settle and likely return, perhaps even a little stronger. We should expect a Chief Legal Officer to act in this way and seeing it so is just a builder of confidence. Yet, I stated confusion, which I remain true to.

Even though these matters are in place and also the fact that the new CFO is not joining them until December 1^st, we should ask what elements were in play with the old CFO leaving. The BBC throws a few more logs on the fire (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29306444). There are facts between the emotions of people. When I read “Professor Ajay Bhalla of Cass Business School said ‘things could not be worse for Tesco’s management and shareholders’“. Sounds nice BBC! Was this the only expert you could find willing to speak out? What do the people at the London School of Business say?

I have other questions too. Where were Chris Bush (Managing director UK) and Mike McNamara (CIO)? Did they not notice the 250 million ‘offset’? Let’s not forget that this 250 million pound caper represents 10% of the ENTIRE Tesco Group profit. That is way too large a number to be this unnoticed by too many on the high level. In regards to the CIO questions will also rise on what data was used, how it was collected and how it was ‘mined’ for the ‘information’ nuggets in the end. Be very wary of what I state here. I am not accusing, or considering their involvement or guilt. Yet, if reports are based upon numbers, which comes from data files, how was all this achieved? There is an entire internal track that should be examined and not just by the two fore mentioned ‘guests’ of the Tesco system. The list of the members of the executive committee seems unbalanced as well, we see all these commercial players, marketeers and even a Chief Creative Officer, however on the other end there is only one Chief Information Officer. Where is the CTO? Where is the CDO (Chief Data Officer)? As I see it, when you have your global groceries and your banks, one CIO just does not cut it, you need two more to create a wall to ‘prevent’ these commercial boys (and three girls) into becoming a little too over enthusiastic. Hurray for Dave Lewis (not Dave Allen), for taking the Bull by the horns and acting the right way. The Guardian informs us of a few other interesting choices, but the two parts that did raise a few issues were “He said the problem was not in the ordinary course of events and that rules may have been broken” and “Analysts pressed Tesco’s chairman, Sir Richard Broadbent, about how the accounting problem went undiscovered until just over a week before the planned announcement of first-half results. Clive Black, an analyst at Shore Capital, said Broadbent’s position was untenable because he had left the board without a finance director“.

Was it that simple? You see, the Lehman reference is there for a reason, they did all these naughty things, yet never actually ‘broke’ the law. a better quote in that regard is one I read a little while ago “Just because an action is legal does not always mean that it is ethical“, which is at the heart of this here. There are two sides, not just that Tesco was without a CFO, but this situation implies that those directly below the CFO, who have been there until now (my assumption) is that they either did not know or did not care what was going on. These are questions that clearly need additional investigation. It is also cause for my opposition to Clive Black, the Shore Capital analyst. A good machine should be able to continue running if a head falls away (for whatever reason); if the machine is sound this would not have happened. So as Mr Black looks at one person, it is my personal believe that the machine itself is not up to scrap. This is partially due to the lacking presence of a CTO and a CDO, the last one is essential when you see someone like Tesco, where the grocery and banking branch are now intertwining. That issue will be more and more essential to other areas where larger players are now doing much more, whether it is banking, insurances or mobile communication. The overlap makes the need for a Chief Data Officer more than just essential.

Even though four people have been suspended there is one more person that needs to be looked at. When I say this I mean not as in suspension, but an investigation into her role seems to be essential as well. In this case I am referring to Rebecca Shelley, the Group corporate affairs director. If we look at the Tesco Governance structure where it states “We have two Committees responsible for ensuring that we live up to our commitments and responsibilities. Our Social Responsibility Committee (see below) is led by our Chief Executive, Philip Clarke, and is responsible for driving our strategy and monitoring our progress. Our Corporate Responsibility Committee, which includes Non-executive Directors, defines our corporate and social obligations as a responsible business. As outlined in his introduction to this report, Sir Richard Broadbent has handed over the Chair of this Committee to Jacqueline Tammenoms Bakker“, which is at http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=168. The role of Rebecca Shelley, in my view should have been more central with inclusion in the financial matters as well (perhaps she was). Even though her role would only have been ‘to be aware‘ it is likely that whatever game was played could not have lasted, or remained this hidden if she would have been part of the reporting side. Is that not a corporate affair?

So as we look at what happened and how to stop it, I think it is also important on how things were meant to run and how they should be run in light of the branching of Tesco. It also lights one other aspect. I reckon the outspoken actions of Dave Lewis might be rare, which means that Tesco is not the only one where there has been an issue of overstating. Who else played and how is compartmentalising in these events is a lot more dangerous than people outside and inside the circle regard them to be.

In the end we should all form our own minds on events when they take place and I hope that this blog raised several questions on things some got away with and more important how things can get better when people like Dave Lewis pick up the issues and goes for them, camera’s and image be damned!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as CFO, Chief Legal Officer, Chris Bush, CIO, Clive Black, Dave Allen, Dave Lewis, DeLoite, Freshfields, Jacqueline Tammenoms Bakker, Mike McNamara, Rebecca Shelley, Shore Capital, Sir Richard Broadbent, Tesco, the Guardian

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives