Category Archives: Law

October 28, 2014 · 22:36

They don’t know what they do!

The article started funny enough. The headline ‘Leaked universal credit memo shows jobcentre staff struggling with rollout’ gave me a clear indication that this is another one of these, let’s get into a world we do not understand (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/27/universal-credit-leaked-memo-scheme-rollout).

I admit that my words here are presumptuous, but I have seen this before, to be honest many of us have seen this before. There was the NHS with 14 billion plus wasted and there were a few other projects, all gone down the drain. So, why can’t some people get their act together?

The first quote is likely the most offensive one, especially in my eyes: “The DWP had promised to have 1 million people on the scheme by April 2014 but, dogged by delays and tens of millions of pounds of IT write-downs and write-offs, the original timetable has been scrapped. Just 15,000 people are on the system“, you think what is wrong with this picture. Consider a $389 notebook, not a great piece of equipment, but I can install a variety of SQL products and have these filled with a database containing the population data of Poland in about an hour, so why do we see a system with only 15,000 records? (intentional trivialisation was used here)

When we get to the timeline (which by the way was not chronological), we see several issues. Let us take a look at them.

28^th April 2013 – Trial begins for Universal credit (UC), which is covered in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/31/liberal-conservative-coalition-conservatives)

Universal credit introduced.
The new in- and out-of-work credit, which integrates six of the main out-of-work benefits, will start to be implemented this April in one jobcentre in Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester. The aim is to increase incentives to work for the unemployed and to encourage longer hours for those working part-time. It had been intended that four jobcentres would start the trial in April, but this has been delayed until July, and a national programme will start in September for new claimants. They will test the new sanctions regime and a new fortnightly job search trial, which aims to ensure all jobseeker’s allowance and unemployment claimants are automatically signed onto Job Match, an internet-based job-search mechanism. Suspicion remains that the software is not ready.

The issues are as follows:

‘Will start to be implemented this April‘, this means that the system had been prototyped, this means that the software has been tested and that the interface has been tested by users, so that a nearly clean version goes online.
The information ‘Suspicion remains that the software is not ready‘, should have been a very clear indication that the brakes had to be applied and at this point, investigations on the entire track should have commenced.

24^th May 2013 The Major Projects Authority review expresses serious concerns about the department having no detailed “blueprint” and transition plan for UC (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/24/universal-credit-danger-failing-whitehall-review)

Universal credit in danger of failing, official Whitehall review says
The first official government admission that Iain Duncan Smith’s flagship plans to remake the welfare state has hit trouble emerged on Friday night when the Cabinet Office’s review of all major Whitehall projects branded the universal credit programme as having fallen into “amber-red” status, a category designating a project in danger of failing.

You think? How about, the issues shown after a month when there were already doubts we see an utter lack of commitment, there is no other way to describe it. When I see the quote “Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, hailed the publication: ‘Major projects need scrutiny and support if we are to succeed in the global race’“, which in my book comes across as ‘only silent scrutiny is allowed. This project is too big‘, which in my eyes is nothing less than a joke, one the taxpayer is paying for by the way. I must also clarify that this is how I initially read it, not how Francis Maude stated it, he seems to want accountability, so do I, it is just too convenient that many involved are not named at all.

In addition we see “An MPA rating of amber-red will anger the DWP, which has insisted that universal credit is on time and on budget” furthermore we see “Data has been exempted from only 21 projects in the review by the Major Projects Authority (MPA), where disclosure would damage commercial interests or national security“.

So now we get the following:

Who at the DWP had made that statement? We want to see his name and his dismissal; I say again dismissal, not his resignation.
Was the same person making the claims in regards to October 2013? This means that we were at that point faced with two delays on a pretty expensive endeavour. More important, until now, there has been a slacking handle on this project, which is likely to be only one of many.

Now we look at two events:

5^th September 2013 A National Audit Office report reveals ministers have written off £34m on failed IT programmes and the launch may be delayed beyond 2017 (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/05/david-cameron-24bn-universal-credit-problems), where we see ‘David Cameron’s £2.4bn universal credit project riddled with problems‘, so the entire UC is more than just a few pennies and we are not seeing any accountability, no criminal charges and no product. We can look at the quote, which is “The National Audit Office said universal credit, the £2.4bn project meant to consolidate six welfare payments into one, has been beset by ‘weak management, ineffective control and poor governance’“, I am about to call it something else entirely.

31^st October 2013 The Guardian reveals ministers have been presented with a radical plan to restart UC and write off £119m of work over the past three years (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/31/universal)

Now we see the following additional quotes “Ministers attempting to put the troubled universal credit welfare reform programme back on track have been presented with a radical plan to restart the scheme and write off £119m of work over the past three years” and “The risk assessment warns that the plan to start again, the ‘design and build’ web-based scheme, is ‘unproven … at this scale’“. It says the plan to fix three years of work on universal credit is still “not achievable within the preferred timescales“, describing it as unrealistic”

These two give us the following:

If we revisit “In March 2013 Duncan Smith told parliament that universal credit ‘is proceeding exactly in accordance with plans’“, then why on earth is Duncan Smith in any government building? If we look at statements from Margaret Hodge and the NAO, there is a clear indication that extreme sanitisation is needed at the DWP, the fact that this multi-billion pound fiasco is still around at that time should give cause to many serious questions.

Just to make sure the reader understands the gravity of this situation, the bungling and wasting of resources at that point could have given nearly every current university student a FREE University degree, which is saying a lot, in addition, those studying IT, might have completed the project for the price of their education, which is saying a lot!

Writing off 119 million of work delivered. A failure is not work delivered, who was minding the stores, the contracts as well as the targets that had to be met? The fact that the amount in the database at present (15,000 people) could have been achieved with a $99 program called Microsoft Access, so can we have the 118,999,901 back please?

When we revisit the September quote “The DWP said the department would continue with the planned reform and was committed to delivering it on time by 2017 and within budget“, we can clearly see that either the DWP has no clue what it was doing, or we have another echelon of people and their ‘goals‘ messing things up.

Are my assumptions valid? Well, so far I did not waste billions, so I am inclined to say yes!

By the way, who did the original costing, who presented the plan and what remains of the initial plan? Because a blowout of these proportions should be regarded as clear evidence that the thought might have been nice, but none of the deciding parties had any clue on what was being decided on (my evidence here are the squandered billions as we see them melting away).

You see, in the old days, in my life, designing a database system was relatively simple. It took 5 weeks and a few iterations of tweaking to get the customer this container system. It worked like a charm! That is what is needed here. People have been overcomplicating things by massive portions.

Web based solution.
Really? With all the intrusions, phishing and other forms of malignant issues, you are going to a web based option? Let’s be clear, this system is all about letters and numbers, so an ASCII based system, which in the old days it was called a DOS program. In this situation a UNIX solution should be sought, but the overall idea is clear. In addition, UNIX is much safer, better protected and scripting allows for evolution when needed. I knew a guy once, who created a scripted solution for product distribution for a global Fortune 500 company, it was one of the few innovative software solutions that actually worked and worked when most systems had to be upgraded, it worked on a Pentium 1 with 90 MHz, a system we now buy for $49 (if even for that much), It conversed with several dozens of locations.

Now, today, when we look at the UC, something bigger is needed, but the systems of yesterday are already 2000 times stronger than the initial system it was designed on, so we can clearly see that the spending of a few billion require a deeper digging, as well as a serious interview by the members of the House of Commons towards the involved members of the DWP.

more web-based system
“The risk assessment, dated 11^th October, says the plan for a faster, more web-based system would involve writing off £119m of previous work, and cost the DWP £96m to develop. However, it warns ministers that they will have no idea if the web-based system will work until the summer of 2014 ‘when it is live for 100 claimants’“

And the laughter just does not stop here, ‘more’ web based system? The people here did not learn the first time? If you want speed, consider simple ASCII, with perhaps local formatted XML. You see, you get loads of characters across in mere milliseconds (36 characters including 10 numbers tends to be fast), and let us not forget, this is all set towards 6 systems, so you need speed. So only this summer was there any chance of knowing anything, so can we wonder again where the money went, because someone is getting pretty rich here and it is not me (alas).

In these two issues we see a reiterated failure, which gives a clear signal that the original design, which would have been BEFORE money was spend, should not have passed any hurdles as I see it.

When I think ANY project I see the following

request
design
prototype
finalise
test
implement

Now, I will admit that a large project needs a lot more, but these 6 steps for the initial trial should have been done in 90 days for 7 tests. One test of each system and the 7th to see one person collected on all 6 systems. Now we have a master that gets us trials where this simple program could be used to star testing everywhere and see if data comes across, yes, this is nowhere near finished, but in the foundation we see what happens if the data of 150,000 people gets requested, so now we know that data can be obtained and we see a timeline of speed and more important bandwidth, because that will be the killer. If we revisit the original time line where the plan was offered in October 2010, which means that this test could have been done before Christmas, so how was time and money wasted, because as we see the Multi Billion pound bill that would be the direct question evolving from this.

The complications
Yes, I am not ignoring this. A system with this much data access will need all levels of security and encryption, there is no denying this, yet using a ‘web-based’ approach seems to me that we might as well give a copy of all this data to the cyber criminals. There are always suite options of security, and yes that needs work, yet some local test could have been made, in addition, a system this vast will need all kind of implementation servers and trained support staff, steps that were not even anywhere near implementing, were they costed for?

When we see the timeline and the involvement from ‘interested’ parties, I cannot stop but wonder what could have been if the right people had sat down, because those involved screwed the pooch big time and the taxpayer can see the billions they have to cough up for a system that never worked.

We will end with three quotes all from the October 27^th 2014 article.

leaked Whitehall documents warned of a failing IT system, more than £1m in wasted expenditure, and how only 25,000 claimants would likely to be served by the system by the general election next year.
The government has written off or written down £130m on the project, which is designed to revolutionise the culture around claiming benefits. It now expects 100,000 people to be on the system by May 2015 and for 100 centres to be involved in its delivery by the end of this year.
When fully rolled out, UC will make 3 million families better off by £177 a month and lift up to 300,000 children out of poverty.”

From the three points we get the following, if the system is turning nuts and bolts at present when there are between 25,000 and 100,000, what complications will we see when the other 2.95 million are added, if we see the issues with less than 4% populated, what happens when the other 96% is added?

When we see the quote in regards to a couple not getting paid, whilst in addition changing their details took three months, we can conclude form the quote “The DWP said the couple’s claim had been delayed because the pair had failed to complete the correct forms. Responding to Dispatches’ findings, a spokesman told the Guardian: ‘Universal credit’s IT system is robust and effective, and we have trained 26,300 work coaches who are successfully providing new support to claimants to help them better prepare for work’“, well if there are 26,300 work coaches and there are currently 25,000 in the system, why did it take three months to correct this? In addition, how come the wrong forms were filled in, what was the cause of that? Should the system not have reported (almost immediately) that the forms did not constitute their current social status/predicament?

This is more than a simple failing; this system seems to lack basic foundations, especially with three months delays.

The sad part is that this is not the first issue we see, when we consider the NHS debacle which I discussed in ‘the second exploitation‘ on August 10th, how the NHS options resulted in a wasted 15 billion, whilst no one seems to take a deeper look at how such large amounts get wasted. Now with the UC we see a similar development, it would be so nice for someone in Whitehall to recognise the need for actual change so that squandering might be minimised be a lot more then it currently is.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as Ashton-under-Lyne, David Cameron, Duncan Smith, DWP, Francis Maude, Greater Manchester, Iain Duncan Smith, Margaret Hodge, MPA, NAO, National Audit Office, NHS, Parliament, the Guardian, the second exploitation, UC, UK, Universal credit, Welfare Reform Act 2012, Whitehall

October 25, 2014 · 19:08

Price Waterfall Blooper

I am sad to say, I am sorry to report
we have not seen any fraud of this sort
not a win or a gain, but just sadness and pain
are the man plainly vain, they do not travel by train
it will not go to court, yet the profits fall short

as my profits progress to the basement below
as executives go, with no exit fee show
we will wonder awhile, what results they proclaim
as we now still decide, should we name, should we shame
where is the pee double you sea and its dough

So, yes, is this the beginning of arts, the limericks and the consequences of non-accountability?

You see, there is no doubt in my mind that the initial investigation is only the beginning for both Tesco and PwC. Whatever we may think, we can be certain that if Dave Lewis had NOT rung the bell, the mess would be a lot larger then it is at present. I think we should also ring the bell of honour for the whistle blower, because without it Christmas would have been the grimmest of experiences in the UK.

Let’s take a look to the last two days, when Deloitte got its report out (to some extent) as reported (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/23/tesco-profits-black-hole-bigger), we see a few things that do not add up.

“He dismissed the idea that fraud may have been involved in the accounting blunder: “Nobody gained financially as a consequence of the overstatement of performance.”“, is that so? You see, there are a few issues that we have; I will step over one of them because I prefer to tackle that part a little further down.
Laurie McIlwee (former CFO) as well as Mike Iddon require closer scrutiny. Mike was a group finance director, planning, treasury and tax. When we see tax, we see a person who will dig, trying to find any cent that is deductible, as a good FD should be, and in 13 years at Tesco, he had not seen anything? Seems rather clumsy doesn’t it? The fact that the accounting hole is a little bigger (15 million is not much when you say it fast), also came with the knowledge from Deloitte that the hole was there for a longer while, so basically, the inflated 265 million, means an inflated payment of taxation, how is that ever a good idea?
So consider Tesco, the size and scope of it. They lose a CFO and a FD, and all along NO ONE at Tesco, I state again, NO ONE seemed to offer to pick up the baton for those months? Even if it was at no extra pay and only for 3-4 months, 99% of the financial industry would be chomping at the bit to pick up the baton, so that they can add this to their resume, it gets even better. It is a win won for whomever picks it up, because if that person does well, then the value of that person goes up by a lot and his/her future, whether within or not with Tesco would be a few steps on the large corporate ladder, even with nothing to gain it ends up being a win/win.

Let’s just face it, I am nowhere near next in line to take command of the 591 Signals Unit at Digby, but if I get the chance because the current commander was on the list to become Air vice-marshal, I would get there running, even if I was still in my pyjamas and was holding only a toothbrush. No matter how well my performance would be, if I made it I would be eligible for a nice challenge at GCHQ, a seriously cool way to skip half a dozen steps on that ladder, now consider that NO ONE had these levels of ambition at Tesco? I truly believe that beside the whistle blower a few more had a clear picture that taking that seat from within would turn out to be nothing less than poisoning their career.

“He dismissed the idea that fraud may have been involved in the accounting blunder: “Nobody gained financially as a consequence of the overstatement of performance.”“, now we get to the issue that I have had since day 1.
Consider that PwC had (a reported by the Guardian in an earlier blog) last year; PwC was paid £10.4m by Tesco for its auditing services and a further £3.6m for other consultancy work (a newer version at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/guardian-view-tesco-auditing-debacle-pwc-systemic-shambles). This article now shows the following quote: “At the very least, this is a very cosy and lucrative relationship“, which slightly debunks the statement of Dave Lewis via Deloitte regarding ‘Nobody gained financially’; it depends on ‘how’ we regard ‘gain’, when the alternative is losing revenue, remaining at status quo is clearly a gain.
So as we see these two numbers, let’s do a little math, let’s say an auditor makes £65,000 a year (a little less usually), so we now see that the annual fee gives us 153 auditors for a year and an additional 46 auditors for the consultancy for a year, that gives us 199 people going over the books, checking it all. No one saw anything? Now, the reality is not exactly like this, but considering that PwC is one of the big 4, we now have a clear case for some serious questions for 25% of all the large audited companies in the UK, how much taxation was not collected, how many large bonuses and incomes were honoured in such a symbiotic incestuous relationship? No wonder George Osborne has such a hard time, the deck seems to be seriously stacked against him.
There is one more thought that comes to mind, but this one is, as I will happily admit, based on shallow grounds. This was all found by Deloitte in a little over a month, mainly because they knew WHERE to look. But, it is entirely plausible that the whistle-blower just knew about that one thing, what else is there and what has not been found yet?

This is important for two reasons. The first is that it then debunks the statement from Lewis, likely via Deloitte who said ‘He dismissed the idea that fraud may have been involved’, I am not convinced! It took Deloitte to find the obvious over the period of a month. We can consider that the fact brought by a whistle-blower gives weight to intently hiding, if not than this person would have stepped forward internally and the old crowd would have solved it, that did not happen. It is not unlikely that those involved hoped for a quick brush under the carpet, this circus was unlikely anything they ever desired. What was signed off on, by the equivalent of 199 auditors remains a serious issue.

This part we can see in the Guardian quote “The making up of the profits figures was not in a report signed off by PwC. That happened in August – three months after PwC had given the supermarket chain’s figures a clean bill of health. Even then, it noted that there was something potentially funny with the numbers, and expressly warned about “the risk of manipulation” – but allowed them to pass anyway“, so something potentially funny does not warrant digging? Let’s not forget they had the equivalent of 199 people for the year, so plenty of digging resources. If we add the following “It is one of the primary ways in which investors, business partners and regulators can tell the true state of the company they are dealing with“, so not only is there a link to possible fraud, the implied length of this gives reason to suspect intentional misdirection towards investors, which makes the news releases all over the papers on class actions against Tesco a plausible worry for some time to come.

It becomes a much finer point of debate when we consider the following abstract ‘Misreporting in our model covers all actions, whether legal or illegal, that enable managers of firms with low value to make statements that mimic those made by firms with high value. We show that even managers who cannot sell their shares in the short-term might misreport in order to improve the terms under which their company would be able to raise capital for new projects or acquisitions‘ (at http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bebchuk/pdfs/2003.Bebchuk-Bargill.Misreporting.pdf). It comes from a paper by Oren Bar-Gill and Lucian Bebchuk, published at Harvard in 2003.

Now we add what they wrote on page 21 “3.4 Creating Opportunities to Misreport, at T=1 managers decide how much to invest in creating opportunities to misreport earnings. The equilibrium level of this investment decision is characterized in the following proposition“. after that it becomes increasingly mathematical, but behold, the initial text ‘whether legal or illegal’, so if the old Tesco gang focussed on ‘legal’, was that the reason they needed to pay an additional 3 million in consultancy (a clear and admitted assumption on my side), yet is that really too weird a thought? Let’s face it PwC signed off on books containing an additional quarter of a billion, which took some time to create.

I know that incestuous is all about keeping it in the family, but the fact that this could possible all be legal is just a little too hard to swallow.

Could it be that both Corporate Law and Taxation Law within the Commonwealth are in dire need of an overhaul? Some might say that it could be an idea to do this before Christmas, to them I say “Bah! Humbug!“, Monday the 5^th of January 2015 will be soon enough. It will give Lord Blackwell, Lord Goodhart, Baroness Goudie and Lord Haskel something to look forward to as some might be enjoying a large roast with potatoes, Yorkshire pudding and thick gravy. The Rt Hon Lord Millett has done more than his share in his long career and his Lordship, as right honourably retired can enjoy a second helping of Christmas plum pudding with custard (unless his lordship prefers the challenge of making corporations a little more accountable then the currently seem to be). I would, as blogger Lawlordtobe be happy to lend a helping hand, but I never studied economy or taxation laws, so I would only get in the way, yet I remain available for assistance if need be. I do reckon that the members of the House of Lords who are members of the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills should consider their calendars, especially if the investigation turns out that the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) will be unable to press any criminal charges, to me and likely to all it should be clear that such levels of orchestration must be addressed!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as 591 Signals Unit, Baroness Goudie, Chancellor George Osborne, Corporate Law, Dave Lewis, Deloitte, Digby, Financial Reporting Council, Financial Reporting Council (FRC), FRC, GCHQ, George Osborne, Harvard, House of lords, Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills, Laurie McIlwee, lawlordtobe, Lord Blackwell, Lord Goodhart, Lord Haskel, Lord Millett, Lucian Bebchuk, Mike Iddon, Oren Bar-Gill, PwC, Rt Hon Lord Millett, Taxation Law, Tesco, the Guardian

October 21, 2014 · 11:16

You might not like it

This morning I got confronted with an article so in my face it literally made me stagger. This article came from the brilliance of a YouTube element called ‘Veritasium’, it was all about the dangers of Facebook, moreover, the dangers of actual investing in Facebook. Of course the hilarious part that I read this on Facebook, so we see a slightly additional view when we consider winking at social media. Yet, before I start we must not forget to show divine humour by emulating the platypus. If Pig Latin is a reconstructed language and we see the Dutch expression of Fisherman’s Latin as ‘catching that really big fish’, is Veritasium a new elemental truth or a truth in mere reconstructed elemental words?

The article is about the concept of buying ‘likes’. The link is here (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag) and I can tell you now that it is worth seeing from beginning to end. The movie takes 9 minutes and it gives you the low down on buying likes and more important the dangers of pushing your visibility.

Now it is best for the reader to see the video, because the speaker does so in a very eloquent way and the only way to get his point across is to quote his entire article, which no longer makes this MY article.

I have seen these issues before, why do we need to ‘like’ things? I do, there are a few likes on my list, I see some advertisement on Facebook and as such, I have no real issue with the advertisement part. It is the price for a free Facebook. Yet, why would you want to pay for more likes? It seems that apart from it costing you money, the video shows that paying for likes is ultimately bad for business. This is only the top of the equation.

The video is calling into question other issues too. The fact that one issue made them shed 83,000,000 fake accounts, one might wonder how many fakes there really are on Facebook. The second is that the linked algorithm is also in question. If we consider the data linked here, then we see a different issue, which links them all.

How are bought likes regarded, especially in the approach towards a percentage of linked advertisements through connected friends?
How can we get actual advertisement pushing flagged towards an engaging audience (which shows growth and possible commitment), while we know that bought likes will never be engaging likes.
How is the data cleaned to show a better mapping of audience versus engagement as well as geography versus interest?

The last point is not just linked over the two issues, we see in the video that there are profiles in the system that are there to like ‘everything’, not in a Zen way, but in a way to mask fake accounts, which gives another matter regarding the algorithms and how they could likely be fooled by those who understand the system.

Yet this is not just about Facebook, we should now also look at the medium that gave us this treasure, namely YouTube. You see, YouTube is all about creating hypes, vibes and types. It is the last of these three that have been a worry for some time and there is no indication that this will stop anytime soon. So, what happened? It started a few months ago, I was looking for a game trailer and there it was right in front of me, the movie Silent Hill. Now, as I am between apartments, I have no access to my DVD collection, so watching this one was heaps fun. I was just a little upset that a Blu-ray was never released of this movie. So, as the month progressed I started to dig into this phenomenon as this seems to be a copyright violation. As I started to dig deeper into this, I noticed a league of movies, some extremely recent all watchable. Even 2014 movies like Godzilla and the new X-Men movies were on YouTube. Now, there is at times a massive drop in quality and 1-2 were clearly filmed in a cinema, but the movies are there. But it is not all that clear. In some cases there are hundreds of copies yet none of them have a movie, they just have a link to click on, or the weird text ‘this movie was deleted by YouTube’ (if that is so, why is the file and the entry still there), so YouTube is used in a growing league of non-trusting reasons. Yet, is the approach for marketing or criminal reasons? That is also the issue, because it tends to skew the people who go there and the reason why they went there. I can very much understand that there are scores of Bollywood movies there, but are they any less a case of copyright infringements?

How does the YouTube issue relate to the Facebook issue? It seems to me that the second is an automated form of getting people to do for the click farm so that they go undetected for a lot longer. Consider the effort it takes to add 100 copies of a film, people might want to see and they all go to a link (for implied free download), we now have a person losing possibly up to 15 seconds, whilst they at that point are facilitating the work of a click farm. The farm remains less detected, whilst the farm gets 100% of the revenue from the click. Now consider that when these movies come out over tens of millions will try a few links, so these farms get all those attempts for a mere 100 uploads, it seems like this is easy money. So as we consider that Google, Yahoo, MSN and others are now trying to battle these farms more and more, yet the fact that YouTube (a Google child) seems to have kept the backdoor open, should be a massive issue, because this puppy tends to go straight to Facebook and Google+, which leaves the impression that people were mopping the floor whilst the tap remains running. So nobody is going anywhere fast.

As such my question now becomes, how anyone can proclaim that keeping the status quo in these matters is nothing less than running backwards on a highway patrolled by blind drivers. So, here is the kicker, how come Google has been unsuccessful to stop such levels of copyright infringement? In my view there are two options, they either are unwilling or unable to do so, unable means that they are not clever enough and that their system of facilitation is there to keep them non-accountable, if it is unwilling, then we see another version where their lives (Facebook and Google) revolves around bandwidth, which gives us the old Telco revenue issue. It is all about the money!

You might not like that reality, but it is a reality we all helped create. What a difference an algorithm makes!

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

Tagged as click farms, Copyright, copyright infringement, downloaded movies, Facebook, Godzilla, google, IP, Marketing, movie uploads, Silent Hill, Veritasium, Youtube

October 18, 2014 · 09:43

As we grow expertise

An interesting story broke on the Guardian this morning, the title ‘Senior NSA official moonlighting for private cybersecurity firm‘ should catch our eyes in many ways, but for most of you it will seem wrong. The story is about an official named Patrick Dowd and how he, as an NSA official also worked in the late hours for IronNet Cybersecurity, yet never crossing the ethical boundaries.

You see, many will shout scream and all others of noises, but the plain and simple truth is that this happens ALL THE TIME. If you think that this is not true, then look at accountancy firms, look at Google and look at a host of other corporations. In this day and age, to get ahead you need to double dip your brain power.

Of course when doing this, knowledge, more precisely data cannot go from one to the other, yet the knowledge and the knowhow is there, which is the IP of the person holding the brain (aka the man with the thought out plan). Former General Alexander is heading a firm making well over 10 million a year (I will send him my resume shortly).

The article written by Spencer Ackerman in Washington (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/17/senior-nsa-official-moonlighting-private-cybersecurity-firm) gives the right nuance and is a good read. More important, between the lines he seems to be implying the question that follows from ““I just felt that his leaving the government was the wrong thing for NSA and our nation,” Alexander told Reuters“, he is of course correct, can we allow in certain areas to suffer a brain drain. Keith Alexanders pragmatic approach, if properly used earlier could have saved the intelligence hundreds of millions in the timespan 2003-2007; no one seems to be looking at that part. We seem to allow ‘dodgy’ accountants to sign off on unchecked quarters of billions, but when a soldier find alternative usage of his skills in non-criminal ways, we tend to shine the limelight on them. For this I only need to show the Reuters quote “(Reuters) – The new boss of Tesco (TSCO.L) has told staff he expects to be able to give a “clear and accurate indication” of the impact of a 250 million pound accounting mistake when the grocer reports delayed first-half results next week“, whilst trying to Google Pricewaterhouse Coopers reveals not one, I say again not one link that the press has taken one look at that part of the Tesco equation. So we can conclude at present (from the evidence as seen published) that for now, the backbone of the press is nothing more than a shoddy paperback!

Back to the Age of Cyber Alexander the Great, as we see the Huffington post, we see the quote “The FSR itself is a veritable tilt-a-whirl of revolving doors, with a steadily increasing lobbying budget on behalf of its corporate bankers and insurers and a roster of high-placed former government officials. For example, the FSR employs the firm of Barnett, Sivon and Natter to advocate its causes“, The Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) seems to be dealing with its ‘own’ mess by getting the bigger boys on the block involved. Now, whether the use of mess is qualified is depending on the view of where the responsibility of pro-active protection and support should be at. (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bea-edwards/the-nsas-keith-alexander_b_5515718.html), but there is no doubt in my mind, that those who would like to be (people like me), who have advanced data skills will have to clear the field to those with catered skills form the NSA, that is just a plain and at times, a little uncomfortable truth. If we look at the CCNA OSI layer as a comparison, then I would cover the layer two and higher, like most of us data boers (South African giggle), yet people like Patrick Dowd have layer one in addition. We all know layer one (physical layer), yet we do not actively interact with it other than a facilitation level. It is there that the difference of a million a month is easily spotted. We can all do it with time, but we were never able to work on that plain, that is where NSA bang for the buck resides. And let us be clear, this is a massive bang for all of the monthly bucks, because if you had not figured it out. RFID blockers are there for a reason, it is not a fab and it is not an overly worrying thing. The people (a very small group at the tip of the pyramid) would gain knowledge of a person beyond your imagination when they scan you as you pass by. The problem is not that you get scanned at times; it is where the flaws start on how thousands lose small amounts every day and no one is ever the wiser. Bloomberg reported in 2011 that hackers took a billion a year, that leak must be dealt with and this is just the small cash drains, when we consider other avenues, the loss of 1 billion might actually be the tip of another pyramid and as such the FSR will needed another game plan.

Keith Alexander saw this niche that was ignored for far too long and with the help of Patrick Dowd and others like him they are looking at changing the game and drastically reducing the losses. In a game of billions, 20 million would be a steal at twice the price. In the age of cutting down, a market hole was found and IronNet Cybersecurity is filling that niche nicely. Consider that the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the Consumer Bankers Association and the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) are only the beginning. It’s such a nice view where we see a former General turned data visionary could become the founder of a billion dollar company. This is not a boast, when we see that outside of the US the digital theft age is a lot more than just a simple 9 figure number, the exact amount is not known, we know of the fact that it is, but not how much, but when it is hushed up to this intent, we can safely assume it is to some extent worryingly high, so as such IronNet Cybersecurity is not the first, but it is likely to grow faster and larger then all others for simple reason of skills and access to knowledge, two elements the others do not tend to have to that degree on these fields.

What will be next? That is the question which is not answered with the final quote, but it shows a much larger field then many considered “Compounding the potential financial conflicts at the NSA, Buzzfeed reported that the home of chief of its Signals Intelligence Directorate, Teresa Shea, has a signals-intelligence consulting firm operating out of it. The firm is run by her husband James, who also works for a signals-intelligence firm that Buzzfeed said appears to do business with the NSA; and Teresa Shea runs an “office and electronics” business that lists a Beechcraft plane among its assets” If you think it has no bearing then think again. As the requirements for data retention grows as stated in more than one nation, the clear limits to skills and people, which have been noted by me and several others to some extend over several months, where do you think these telecom companies will get the consultants and knowledge from?

These places refused to grow expertise when they had the chance, pushing the need forward again and again, now these consultants are pretty much all that is left and training in house staff will get a lot more expensive soon enough, good business is where you find it, and it seems that Keith Alexander and Teresa Shea saw that companies were painting themselves into a corner, they only had to wait until the first one realised that they had no place left to go.

The consequence came to them as easy as eating pancakes, the cherry they got for free!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Military, Science

Tagged as Barnett, CCNA, Consumer Bankers Association, Financial Services Roundtable, FSR, Huffington Post, IronNet Cybersecurity, Keith Alexander, NSA, OSI, Patrick Dowd, reuters, RFID blockers, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, SIFMA, Sivon and Natter, Spencer Ackerman, Teresa Shea, the Guardian

October 13, 2014 · 21:05

A matter of Jurisprudence

Another morning, another moment we see another round of iterated news. Just now I noticed another article placed 5 hours ago (5 hours after my previous blog) on how 2 more senior directors are moving out. The first one “company secretary Jonathan Lloyd, who advises the board on legal and governance issues, had resigned and was serving out his notice until March 2015“, the second one “Ken Hanna, chairman of Tesco’s audit committee, is also set to step aside as a non-executive director as the company’s chairman reshuffles his management team“. The news was in more than just one source. The quote “‘His resignation is not connected to the current investigation. It’s his own choice; he’s got a new job with another listed company,’ a Tesco spokesman said“. All this might be true, but let us be fair, if it was not HIS choice, would we hear this from either Jonathan Lloyd or Tesco?

This got me looking into another area. I got the impulse after seeing a PDF (at http://www.chadbourne.com/files/upload/dandoliability.pdf).

In there we see the following under the title ‘General Duties of Directors under the Act‘, “To promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members having consideration to: (a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term” as well as what we see at 3.5 under Common Law Duties, where we see “At common law, a director is obliged to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care in carrying out his/her duties. The standard of care involves both an objective and subjective element”. In other words, the director is required to exercise that degree of skill which might be expected from someone having both: ‘his own particular knowledge and experience‘ as well as ‘the general knowledge and experience which might be expected of a person carrying out the same functions as those carried out by that particular director‘.

For those who kept their eyes on my blog articles on Tesco, are you seeing the issues that are now in my mind?

I talked about negligence on several moments, I iterated parts of these and wondered about several questions, especially the fact that the press has been lacking in digging into these matters. Now a simple Google search led me to the PDF by Chadbourne & Parke. The Guardian could have had decent insight a mere 23 minutes by bus away (a little over 3 miles), so why does it take a non-journalist from the other side of the planet to connect the dots?

The PDF is a mere information piece, perhaps a little advertisement and it states that you needs proper legal advice, yet, not one paper has been digging into that pile have they? I did not get my law degree in the UK, yet I do get the gist of it, more important, the deeper I dig, the clearer the view seems to become that others are ignoring it. So, are these all just imaginations of conspiracy theory by me the blogger? This is clearly a question the reader might ask themselves. Yet, am I accusing of issues being covered up? I am to some degree, yet at the foundation I am questioning the information I read and I wonder why others, those who should be asking and digging on ‘issues’ are not doing that.

Yet the jewel was in 5.1, where we see “To a large extent, these mainly relate to duties of internal management, e.g. the keeping of accounting records; the preparation of annual accounts; the filing of documents with the Registrar of Companies and the keeping of the statutory books of the company. Failure to perform these duties or to ensure that they are performed may result in fines both for the company and the defaulting directors. Directors may also be subject to imprisonment“, so when we see this does it not seem interesting on how quickly some are leaving the field for a ‘better’ option?

This all brought me to Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 561. It is a UK Law case and quite the one at that became the main precedent which is now codified under s174 of the Companies Act 2006. “He did not show reasonable diligence when he signed the form. He was therefore in breach of his duty to the company“, how does this relate?

Is it about filling in a form? No, but when we regard s214(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, we see the same approach as we see in a mere PDF by Chadbourne at 5.1, there is a visible need for “general knowledge, skill and experience“, but how do we see the term general knowledge? You see, the Tesco issues are stated in regards to ‘specific knowledge’, as we see the changes as they had been pushed through before the Dave Lewis change. This all gets me back to Rebecca Shelley at Tesco. First of all, there is no accusation here, there is no indication that she did anything wrong. So why does she pop up on my radar, because she is a woman? No! Tesco has several, some even in higher places then Rebecca. Let’s take a look that I saw on the Birchwood Knight site (at http://www.birchwoodknight.co.uk/news-article/tesco-hires-rebecca-shelley-for-group-director-of-corporate-affairs-role-151).

Here we see the following quote “As part of her corporate affairs role, Rebecca will be responsible for government and media relations, investor relations, internal communications and corporate social responsibility (the legal affairs and other elements of Lucy Neville-Rolfe’s brief are being split into another role)“, am I reading too much into this?

Consider the (former) flying parts of Tesco. When we see the need and the issues involving legal matters, was the revamping of the role as Rebecca Shelley received it a niche part of what should have been? This is where I see ‘general knowledge’ versus ‘specific knowledge’. It is my personal view that Rebecca’s role should be a lot more senior, especially in light of the revelations we see in the papers, am I that wrong? If she had the legal sides to her role, how much earlier might we have seen the overstatement, or the Gulfstream issue for that matter? These issues are in relevance towards the place I am trying to see, places the press does not seem to be looking, the place that readers as well as half a million Tesco employees should be aware of. I will go one step further, as I see the issues in play, as I see the matters of non-transparencies as well as an indicated lack of information towards the shareholders gives reasoning that they might want to evolve the role of Rebecca Shelley to the board. Especially in light of the massive changes Tesco is likely to face.

Yet, legally speaking, there are additional questions when we look at http://www.ibe.org.uk/userassets/briefings/ibe_briefing_31_tax_avoidance_as_an_ethical_issue_for_business.pdf, was the Gulfstream a form of tax avoidance? None of this is illegal, but it comes with ethical questions and as such I wonder how much the shareholders knew or should know. If tax avoidance is avoiding social obligation and as such it could damage public trust and reputation, does the link now make sense? The argument that shareholders want maximised value, which means a minimised taxable footprint, so how are choices made? More important why am I the only one who seems to be asking the questions that have relevance and am I alone digging into this?

One final step regarding the Chadbourne paper, at 6.15 we see “that directors of companies must make certain disclosure statements in the directors’ reports. This applies not only to information which the officer actually knew of but also information he would have known about if he had conducted a reasonable enquiry. However, the provision goes further and requires the director to confirm that, so far as the director is aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the company’s auditors are unaware. A director has a duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence when preparing the directors’ report. In determining a director’s liability under the Act, the statutory test is that a director will commit an offence if he knew the statement was false or was reckless as to whether it was false and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the report from being approved“, which just raises additional questions. Yet, consider the following in light of all I wrote and quoted about the issues on generic and specific tasks, the issues on “which the officer actually knew of but also information he would have known about if he had conducted a reasonable enquiry” becomes an issue when the board is so niched that reasonable inquiry is no longer an option. It would in my mind place the role of Rebecca Shelley at the centre of it all, yet with the legal part removed we would see a hindrance there too. So as you look at the events that the press wrote about, the parts I wrote about and the questions I have been asking. I mentioned in the early beginning of Tesco regarding orchestration in the article ‘The orchestration has engaged‘, yet I thought it was external, is it possible it had been internal and the involved parties are clearing the field really fast at this point?

But there is one more issue, especially if I want to remain true to the title ‘A matter of Jurisprudence’, s370 Enforcement of directors’ liabilities by shareholder action (as seen in the Companies Act 2006), we see under s370(1)(a) “in the case of a liability of a director of a company to that company, by proceedings brought under this section in the name of the company by an authorised group of its members;” there are a few other issues which give question on how enforceable this would be, yet consider the issues we have seen, what more should be looked at? Consider chapter 6 of the same act ‘Voidness of provisions protecting auditors from liability’, now consider “for exempting an auditor of a company (to any extent) from any liability that would otherwise attach to him in connection with any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the company occurring in the course of the audit of accounts”, now we get Pricewaterhouse Coopers in the mix. There is no indication at present that PwC is at fault in any way, yet when we see the issue regarding small change (read 250 million), when we regard that this inflation was not just straight through, but as I see it (a clear assumption) the fact that it required a whistle-blower, indicates that the inflation was decently buried. Was it buried well enough for PwC? That is the question. The implied extra 3 million in consultancy might have been valid, considering the size of Tesco, so where is the negligence? There might not be any at all, but consider that the Tesco executives took PwC for a ride and it was not found and it was signed off on, when THAT becomes visible, what will happen to the value of PwC, if a mere 250 million can topple a 70 billion pound company, what would be the impact on PwC for not finding it?

Perhaps that is a conspiracy theory, evolving as the facts seem to fit (or fitting the facts as they seemingly evolve), but are they? Even I question that what I find, but I will ask questions none the less, something the press has not been doing in any way, shape or form.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as Birchwood Knight, Chadbourne & Parke, Companies Act 2006, Dave Lewis, Insolvency Act 1986, Jonathan Lloyd, Ken Hanna, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, PwC, Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 561, Rebecca Shelley, Tesco, The orchestration has engaged

October 12, 2014 · 23:49

How the press became redundant

I wonder whether the press corps, or the press corpse we might call them, are aware of what they are working on. Did they consider the events? It is such an interesting wave when we see the consequences, yet those who write about them don’t seem to be too fussed about the reality of the facts. So shall we take a look?

Fact: ‘He abandoned this post to become CEO of Tesco effective of 1 September, 2014‘ (at http://online.wsj.com/articles/lewis-to-become-tesco-chief-executive-a-month-early-1409312947)

Fact: ‘Tesco reveals it overstated first-half results by £250m‘ (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67fb8db4-421e-11e4-9818-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3FvJ9DhJP)

There was a fallout, as we would expect, yet to what extent are we confronted with facts and to what extent are we introduced to the real events.

From October 3^rd onwards, we have seen news in regards to the gulfstream that was apparently ordered in 2013 (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29488777), now let’s take a look at the quotes “Tesco has confirmed it has taken delivery of a new private jet worth £30m, a week after major errors were discovered in the company’s accounts” and “Tesco paid for the jet 20 months ago and is required to take delivery”. How interesting this news (not really), in addition we see the news from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/03/tesco-corporate-jet-gulfstream-supermarket), with the quote “Tesco’s new chief executive, Dave Lewis, moved quickly to defuse a situation likely to anger investors who have seen the value of their shareholdings halve this year. No Tesco executives will ever board the jet, as he has put it up for sale – along with the rest of the Tesco fleet, which includes a Hawker 800 and two Cessna Citations” and “To charter a G550 for a 12-hour flight would cost nearly £67,000 – more than twice the average UK salary of £26,000” and finally “In a further irony Tesco has only retrenched from overseas markets in recent years. It has shut down its US chain Fresh & Easy, pulled out of Japan and scaled back its ambitions in China”.

So how about the following questions:

Why was the board not grilled initially?
Why do we not see the press going after the ‘departed’ managers?
So, why are the shareholders up in arms? Were they not informed of these purchases?

That entire issue becomes odd when we consider the fact that there was retrenching moving away from the international scene and no one asked questions? Was the purchase not approved 20 months ago? Was it not reported? No one seems to ask or investigate those questions, it was ordered 20 months ago, was there no down payment?

Personal note: Can I offer a deal on one citation? I can raise $20.00 (pretty much all I have left)

‘Tesco Workers Want The New CEO To Know About The Unpaid Overtime They’re Working‘ (at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/tesco-unpaid-overtime-2014-9)

Let’s take a look at the quotes “Six of them mentioned, without being prompted on the issue, that they or their staffers were required to work unpaid overtime“, so when we consider gov.uk “Employers don’t have to pay workers for overtime. However, employees’ average pay for the total hours worked mustn’t fall below the National Minimum Wage“, was that taken into consideration? What is stated in the contracts on working overtime? Those are issues that are a given and have been a known quantity, so why does this pop up now? Let’s not forget the quote “Lewis, who started his new job earlier this month“, from an article on September 8^th, the man has had the function for only one week. So is this article by Jim Edwards at the Business Insider anything but a hack job? It is even more interesting that the name Philip Clarke does not come up once in the entire article, who was in charge whilst this mess was growing, were the overtime issues properly investigated? 6 out of 500.000, I think that the business insider has other issues to explain. This article did not just pop up, a mere week after Dave Lewis got to be in charge, questions should be asked! (especially at the desk of Business Insider)

This takes us to the Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2014/jun/27/mark-carney-interest-rates-tesco-barclays), the quote “Half the City is playing the game of fantasy chief executive, and some former Tesco directors have been muttering darkly about Clarke’s supposed strategic errors and how the company’s woes shouldn’t be dumped on former boss Sir Terry Leahy” gives us the issue that there are several problems in the works, when we consider “This boils down to a simple question: do investors believe Tesco should cut its prices deeply, take the fight to Aldi and Lidl, and accept that profit margins of 5% are no longer viable?” gives us the question that this is all a year after the gulfstream was ordered, why was the order not cancelled at this point? The article has an interesting paragraph: “Do Tesco shareholders really want to sanction a price war, which would mean accepting a lower share price, at least in the short-term? Most, one suspects, are not convinced by Clarke’s strategy but still hope he might be proved correct. Another profits warning would force them to get off the fence. If it doesn’t happen, Clarke ought to be safe. But a warning after three years of heavy capital investment would surely force a strategic rethink“, what was decided by the shareholders? This article came on June 28^th 2014, 8 weeks before Dave Lewis took the reins, so what happened in these 8 weeks? More important, it seems that no criminal investigation into Philip Clarke has been reported up to now. Before we even consider whether there are criminal charges yes or no, we see overstatements by a quarter of a billion, we see a 50 million dollar plane delivery and there are questions of the process of reporting, towards the shareholders, within the corporate structure, an oversight of transparencies and a stronger indications that the board of directors is either inapt or uninformed, which seems to point towards strong levels of negligence, possibly criminal ones. The press seems uninformed and unable to inform, so why the half-baked (as I see it) levels of the active press?

If we consider the Tesco PLC Annual General Meeting 2014 (at http://www.tescoplc.com/assets/files/cms/Notice_of_Tesco_PLC_Annual_General_Meeting_2014.pdf), we see at the first part: “1. To receive the audited accounts for the financial year ended 22 February 2014, together with the strategic report, directors’ report and auditors’ report on those accounts. The directors are required to present the annual accounts, strategic report, directors’ report and the auditors’ report on the accounts to the meeting“, that sounds nice, but in a 12 page document, which I admit is just a notice of the meeting, we see several references and an overall ‘dividend’ of as stated “To declare the final dividend of 10.13 pence per Ordinary Share recommended by the directors“, was that including or excluding the 250 million balloon act? If including, what is the dividend after that? So what was in play to begin with?

In addition in another Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/27/uk-growth-figures-awaited-as-tesco-faces-agm-business-live) on June 28^th we see “Shareholders may also quiz CEO Philip Clarke about the 310 separate, undeveloped sites across the UK which Tesco owns, but hasn’t developed. Enough to build 15,000 new homes, as a Guardian investigation has found“, really? So what about that gulfstream prices at 20% of the inflated amount, where is that one in the books? So this opens another door for Dave Lewis. What if these sites get converted to houses and as such people can get a Tesco mortgage? It is long term, it offers a stable future and it gives you a consumer base as you open a small Tesco on one of the plots. Tesco must change, yet to what extent?

Yet one other article from June 30^th showed “Clarke repeatedly refused to bow to shareholder pressure to set a target date for when its US business Fresh & Easy – which has been in the red since it launched in 2007 – would finally begin to turn a profit“, so after 7 years there is a profit? Why was there no stronger investigation in regards to these parts? Why was there no real tally of the Tesco corporation in the Guardian and pretty much every other paper?

Now we see the following (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/10/tesco-sell-financial-footing-blinkbox-dobbies-dunnhumby), written last Saturday by Zoe Wood. The title is kind of catchy ‘Passed their use-by date? The businesses Tesco could sell‘, oui oui Zoe!

“Analysts think Lewis needs to find £2bn-£3bn, either from the pockets of big City investors or selling some of the family silver – or both – if it is to have a sure financial footing from which to recover from this year’s collapse in profits and the accounting scandal that has exposed a £250m black hole in expected first half profits“. First of all, these analysts are not really worth the paper they write on. This all went by them as there suddenly was a whistle blower, as such, before that none of them wondered on how there was too much (like a quarter of a Billion) in the report and until the blower of the whistle, they kept pretty quiet. I feel at times that the Monday morning quarterback is a better judge then these analytical experts. Then there is “But some retail experts think it strayed too far when it started investing in trendy restaurant chains, tablet computers and video streaming services“, is that so? It seems that the tablet sold like hot cakes and was a good alternative to the iPad and its competitors. As for selling its assets the first being ‘Dunnhumby’ “The accounts for that year show a pre-tax profit of £67.6m on sales of £165m – a year when it paid Tesco a £140m dividend. There’s no doubt Dunnhumby’s services are valuable but getting someone to part with £2bn might be a stretch“, this might be true on several counts, yet are these dividends part of the 1.1 billion profits? If not, then we are not told the whole thing, if yes, then losing 10% of the profit is not a good thing, more imp0ortant, who owns the data, who owns the parks and who is in charge? Data of this magnitude has multiple applications and additional value. Yes Lewis might want to focus on retail, but getting a shave on road to the guillotine is also questionable. Some say, if that is all that is left, then the shave is extremely important. I state, data is treasure, you only need to combine it with the right databases and you open up an entirely new branch from the initial base, which would all be Tesco’s if it is currently all Tesco’s. The important part is shown in the part of Tesco Air, the quote “Kansas Transportation’s accounts show Tesco spent £29m flying executives around the world in private planes between 2005 and 2012, but with fewer countries to visit the company’s airfare bill will probably come down anyway“, so we see on average four million a year. How many did fly? Can anyone explain how negligent acts are not investigated? Is there a case for criminal investigations? How many executives and where to? If we consider London – Tokyo business class and it costs Business Class at £1,290, it means they either flew 3100 executive, or one executive for 8 years EVERY DAY. Is anyone seeing the writing on the airplane yet? You see, in my old job we has a VC, a Sandhurst graduate. He had one massive rule (actually he had 12 of them), the rule was in place since 1992 at least. ‘Rule 4, Don’t give our profits to the airlines‘, that rule made perfect sense 12 years before the financial collapse; it should have been a biblical rule from 2004 onwards with every big corporation.

You might think that getting rid of several executives would solve it, but consider the amounts and the level of actions from long before Dave Lewis stepped in, why was this not sanitised on a massive scale al lot earlier, which gets me back to the actual AGM’s, what was discussed, what was presented and where are these documents? It feels so right to quote baby Herman from ‘Who framed Roger Rabbit‘, “this whole case smells like yesterday’s diapers!”

I can understand that the press was to some extent unaware, yet no one dug into this, why is all this managed by Kansas Transportation, were they in the AGM documents, with every small fact I get loads of additional questions, questions that I did not see anywhere in the press, so what else did they miss? Seeing it mentioned now by Zoe Wood does not count in my books, this should have been on the front page a lot longer before this.

Yet, most of the issues here we see that they ask questions of the CEO Dave Lewis, which makes sense as he is Mr Big Boss, yet the other members are not chased for answers. Why not? It seems that these people were there when massive issues were bungled. The article only has one issue that bothers me, it is not with the writer, or how she wrote it, it is an excellent piece, yet this part “Tesco is thought to be soliciting offers for Blinkbox, which was set up by former Channel 4 and Vodafone executives to create a competitor to Amazon’s LoveFilm and Netflix. If a buyer cannot be found the heavily loss making streaming service could just be closed down. “The inherent value of Blinkbox is its relationships with content providers,” says Ken Olisa, chairman of technology merchant bank Restoration Partners. “It’s an example where content is king.”” troubles me. ‘If a buyer cannot be found the heavily loss making streaming service could just be closed down‘, so why not let it close down? Why pay for the bungling of others? When we consider the part ‘The inherent value of Blinkbox is its relationships with content providers‘, so if there is enough content, there should not be heavily losses. Yes, it all depends on customers, yet content draws in customers. Is the content of good value? There is more when I look at the website. If it is so clued in, why are Nextgen consoles not there, why is the Tesco tablet not mentioned there? Seems to me that either this is not updated, especially as the Nextgen consoles were here in 2013, it seems to me that if you want a growing interest, being the first in Nextgen seems to be a high priority.

There is more, yet when we consider the issues in play, like Tesco Mobile, I see opportunities ignored, the fact that the chips are down seems to be a massive push for the siblings of Tesco to put them into high gear. Perhaps this is done, which would be fair, but the press is not noticing any of that, which makes me wonder whether things are not happening, or whether the press seems to be looking at issues wearing very specific glasses. I honestly cannot tell which, yet considering the Sony Mobile debacle, we see options for Tesco to swoop in and grab some revenue (as Sony lost 2.4 billion), there are more avenues, yet I wonder whether I should state them now, or should I wait and see what else the press at large is missing over the coming week.

Should be more fun to wait, I reckon!

P.s. Consider the AGM PDF, how come PwC is nowhere to be found in press mentions (if they are there then only in the most shallow of mentions).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as Blinkbox, Business Insider, Dave Lewis, Dunnhumby, Philip Clarke, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, PwC, Sir Terry Leahy, Sony, Tesco, Tesco Mobile, the Guardian, Zoe Wood

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

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives