Category Archives: Politics

January 7, 2016 · 21:20

Comprehension

At times, I am at a loss. This is one of those times, and it started as I was confronted with the article ‘Treat surrogate parents as sex offenders, says Italian minister’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/treat-surrogates-sex-offenders-italian-minister-angelino-alfano). You see, here I have two levels of confusion.

Let me explain. The first level involves the women that do this. I do not mean this in any negative way! I get it when it is family, but even then, there is part of me that does not quite grasps it. There is nothing as noble as ‘to give thine own body’. You see, no matter how noble it is, I could never fathom a surrogate mother, not her way or her intent, but the fact that once the baby was born that she would have the strength to part with it. We see and read on how teenage girls offer children up for adoption, mainly because they were not ready and they are unable to care for the child and the child might end up having a much better life. In those instances we try to be understanding, but we all realise that this could eat away at the soul of the young woman who did this. There have been many books and many movies, yet the reality is that only that mother can truly state and express what it felt like.

I think it would not be a pretty picture.

So in that light, understanding that a surrogate mother might actually be capable of raising that child, the willingness to part with it is incomprehensible to me, and I need not comprehend. In all this, I never looked negative against the woman who made that choice. So when I read ‘Angelino Alfano says ‘wombs for rent’ should be punishable with prison, as he suggests new laws will make it easier for gay couples to use surrogate mothers‘, I wonder what kind of an idiot Angelino Alfano actually is. Is he just anti-gay, is he anti-surrogate? From what I read I feel certain that he is anti-intelligent!

Now we get to the religious part, because Italy is all about Catholics. At times I think that Italy is all about Catholics, food and adultery, but we get to that soon enough. So, you’ll see some scriptures, but again, reasoning later.

So Angelino Alfano, answer me this, of all your friends who committed adultery, Leviticus 20:10 “If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour’ s wife, let them be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress“, so how many of those ‘friends’ did you put to death? Or perhaps we should take a look at his actions as stated by the Financial Times on October 2nd 2013 (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a142b3a8-2b46-11e3-a1b7-00144feab7de.html#axzz3wXhbQy5b), where we see: “the young Sicilian lawyer has been compared to Judas Iscariot in leading a betrayal of his long-time mentor“. Interesting, so who was that Judas Iscariot person? I wonder if there was a punishment for treason, so in all that, it should be clear that Angelino Alfano should not be making too many statements for a few reasons (read: I will not remove his freedom of speech, just request he keeps a centre of discretion with all his alleged transgressions).

Now, for the other side.

In the Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Philippians 2:3 we see “Let nothing be done through contention, neither by vain glory: but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves“, it seems that the happiness for the others is taken in much higher regard. In following there is Timothy 1, where at 6:18 we see “To do good, to be rich in good works, to give easily, to communicate to others,” and finally in Corinthians 10:23-24 we see: “All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify. Let no man seek his own, but that which is another’s”

At face value women who did this have done a Samaritan act of sacrifice and goodness against their nature but not an unnatural one. In a tale of two villages where a storm destroys the bakery of one, should the other baker not make available the oven so that the other village will not perish? Is that such a far stretch? So in that same light should a man of such hypocritical disposition not be shunned for his words and actions? When we read “Treating couples who use surrogate mothers as sex criminals, as Alfano suggested, would entail harsh penalties“, you see the subtext ‘couples who use surrogate mothers‘ is part of this and he seems to be driven to label this as ‘forms of human sexual behaviour that are crimes‘, are they? You see, legally speaking, the intent was given as ‘who use‘, yet this is not the case, the surrogate mother volunteered, which is not the same, she offered and was not used. This now gives us the path he might try to walk which is ‘Treating surrogate mothers who volunteer assistance to same sex couples as sex criminals‘. It seems to get a little dicey now, doesn’t it! As any Samaritan act of good intent is usually not prosecutable. So what started this?

You see, surrogacy is illegal in Italy and that, even if some would considered it to be ‘the act of a non-enlightened nation‘, it is the legal premise that Italy is allowed to make, so when Angelino Alfano comes with the quote “We want ‘wombs for rent’ to become a universal crime. And that it is punished with prison. Just as happens for sexual crimes”, we should all question what is in his mind, perhaps it is the voice of some obscure cleric from Sicily (his origins) who has a massive anti-gay agenda. Perhaps this is not about any of that! Remember the Financial Times part? That is a while ago, but his position is nowhere stable, in addition, in Politico we see “Last month, Angelino Alfano, Italy’s interior minister, described as a “symbol of victory” a plane carrying 19 young Eritreans from Ciampino airport in Rome to Luleå in Sweden. Italy, he said, would send an additional 100 people “in the next few days”” (at http://www.politico.eu/article/why-eu-refugee-relocation-policy-has-been-a-flop-frontex-easo-med/), the UNHCR reveals that on December 31^st 2015 153,600 refugees had arrived in Italy, 97,584 on Angelino’s island of Sicily (read: 63.53125% roughly). So is this really about the surrogacy issue, or is he just making waves especially as he heralded a new home for 19 of those refugees (aka 0.000012369%) with the additional 100, meaning he got a solution for 0.000077473%, yes we can all see where the importance of Angelino Alfano is. It is in the smallest of margins where we see his actions, so as I read this, I am not convinced it is his ‘anti’ approach in all this, it is his need for visibility as I see it and he is not doing it in the most intelligent way imaginable.

Instead of an actual effort to solve the logistics of the refugee tsunami that hits Italy and his island Sicily, we see a surrogacy and an anti-gay tainted pass ono a group that can find a sheltered solution outside of Italy, so instead of solving the problems Italy does have (aside of the 2,230,198,602,275 € debt Italy has at present), we see another politician waste time, space and energy on a topic that is not his to solve and one that has absolutely no solving value for Italy at all.

In all this I feel decently certain that even the Bishop of Rome would side with me that although it is a discussion worthy of the Cardinals Conclave, these women might be beautified for their divine compassion 100% sooner than Angelino Alfano ever will.

Now for me, I have always been leaning towards man-made or positive laws. I feel that the interpretation is important and that we do not always have the wisdom to properly interpret, which is why I have always been a fan of Dr BJ McEniery’s article ‘Physicality in Australian patent law’, which was published in the Deakin Law Review. You see Intellectual property has always been under powerful evolutions, yet the fact that long ago there was a clear understanding that physicality was something that would evolve and the law had no way off seeing how and towards what is always in the back of my mind. Ignoring Natural law is therefore equally stupid. As a Catholic I tend to be more Christian than Catholic, where it is important to see and weigh the intent on the person, so even as I do not rule out the less Samaritan paths a surrogate mother could be on, the powerful drive within any mother would counter this strongly whenever possible, which gets me to the positivity of their act against the trivial and self-righteous mindset of Angelino Alfano and on that scale he does not fare well.

So even if you disagree with my choices of bible passages, there is almost no way where you can consider in favour of the trivial path Mr Alfano is on. I would hope that his holiness the Bishop of Rome would sooner rather than later (as well as several members of the curie) would consider speaking out that the need to solve the suffering of 153,600 refugees take a massive priority over the possible issue that a handful of surrogate mothers might bring, especially when they are openly and voluntarily offering their Samaritan womb on this. So if Angelino Alfano ever (in a legal Samaritan way) rescues the plight of 1536 refugees (aka 1%), only then if any energy is left should he look at small and insignificant issues. but by that time his political reign has ended and the press will not have any time for him as they will be wanting to hear from the next elected official.

There are many issues that plague Europe, some we might never fix, some we can possibly fix and some can be fixed, do we really need to look at issues that do not presently require fixing?

I will let you be the judge of that, but for those who do have a Christian background they still adhere to remember the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (7:1) “Judge not, that you may not be judged, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again“, which is good advice, advice that might be a little too late for Angelino Alfano if we are to believe the Divine Comedy. For was it not Antenora where the transgressors of treason of party and nations ended up, to be frozen in ice up to the neck? Now, let’s be fair, Mr Alfano is no Count Ugolino della Gherardesca, yet as we see the credits he heralds in whilst Italy remains in dire need and he voices his view to a ‘universal solution’ where Italy has no problem, where is his actual allegiance and as such is that not utterly detestable? Yes it is, which does not make it treason or treacherous, yet as Italian Minister of the Interior, his responsibility is for internal security and the protection of the constitutional order. As such he can prosecute surrogacy within Italy, yet it does not mean that it is his job to waste time for the change of a ‘universal solution’, especially as surrogate mothers are in no way an internal security issue, yet the 153,481 (if he ever got the additional 100 towards refugees towards Sweden) might be. As I see it, the refugee logistics fall squarely in his lap, an issue he does not seem to be addressing, which we should regard as a failed level of comprehension on his side.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Religion

Tagged as adultery, Angelino Alfano, Antenora, Bishop of Rome, Cardinals Conclave, catholics, Christians, Corinthians 10:23, Count Ugolino della Gherardesca, Deakin Law Review, Dr BJ McEniery, Epistle Of Saint Paul, Financial Times, Italy’s interior minister, Luleå, Philippians 2:3, Physicality in Australian patent law, Politico, Saint Matthew, Saint Matthew 7:1, Sicilia, surrogacy, surrogate mothers, Sweden, the Divine Comedy, the Pope, UNHCR

January 4, 2016 · 21:38

By what standard

An article appeared several hours ago that brings forth questions. The Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/03/saudi-execution-call-for-west-to-condemn-killing-of-shia-cleric), gives several causes for concern. The first one is in the title ‘Saudi execution: call for west to condemn killing of Shia cleric‘, why? The subtitle ‘UK Treasury minister describes the killing of Nimr al-Nimr as a ‘worrying development’ as tensions escalate‘ is cause for additional concern. In my (simplistic) viewpoint, why is David Gauke, financial secretary to the Treasury speaking here (read: quoted)? Why is this not voiced by the UK foreign office (and the Home office for that matter)? THEY are spokespeople in this case, well the Foreign Office more than the Home Office in this case, but the home office would be voicing the ‘home front’ feelings. No, it is the financial secretary to the Treasury, whose voice does not count in this situation that is the view that is voiced.

You see, Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation where the use of capital punishment is based on Shari’ah (or Islamic law). I did not study Shari’ah Law and as such I cannot answer the legality in this, but Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation with its own set of laws and it is time for people to start understanding that other cultures have other rules and laws. For me, I am still amazed on how capital punishment is not in existence in Commonwealth Law, in addition, I am amazed how targeted killing is still not a legal option, an absence I still believe is more an act of cowardice than anything else (I will address this part later in this article).

So Saudi Arabia has the death penalty, this is not new, it is a given. Yet, what people seem to forget is that when you look deeper into Islamic Banking and Finance that this system is not greed driven, that what is regarded as Sharia compliant finance. It approached the view where Sharia prohibits acceptance of specific interest or fees for loans of money, whether the payment is fixed or floating, which as I understand it implies any excess compensation without due consideration (absent of time value of money), which implies (without deeper investigation, cannot be stated as for certain by me) that the hedge funds nightmare that Wall Street bestowed upon the world would never have happened under Shari’ah Law, I will let you contemplate that thought by yourself!

Let’s get back to capital punishment! When we look at an article by Elizabeth Peiffer (at http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=wmjowl), we see the following on page 508 (page 3 of the article), “The harsh punishments required for hudud crimes are intended to deter those who might commit crimes that are dangerous to an Islamic society“, in additional support there is something I should add from the Catholic Education Resource Center (at http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/social-justice/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment.html), where we see “At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die” (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, referring to Exodus 2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9)“, in addition I offer “The last case of an execution by the Catholic Church was that of the schoolmaster Cayetano Ripoll, accused of deism by the waning Spanish Inquisition and hanged to death 26 July 1826 in Valencia after a two-year trial” (at http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/805877-196/daily-twip—the-spanish-inquisition-executes.html).

We seem to impose ‘our’ values on every nation, yet we do not take responsibility or repair the damage we allow others to make under either a Christian or atheist guise, how just is that?

Let’s get back to the issue that started all this, you see Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr was sentenced to death. The BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29627766) gives us “he was found guilty of seeking “foreign meddling” in the kingdom, “disobeying” its rulers and taking up arms against the security forces“, ‘taking up arms against the security forces’ could be seen as insurrection at best and treason at worst, when I point back to the issue shown in the article by Elizabeth Peiffer we get ‘intended to deter those who might commit crimes that are dangerous to an Islamic society’, is that not the case for both insurrection and treason? Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr was himself a cleric, so how was the consequence a surprise? Because he was regarded as ‘popular among youth’? The sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia has a set of laws, this is known, so again, why do we read that David Gauke sees this as a ‘worrying development’? Shouldn’t the man be playing with an abacus and solving the UK economy issues (the UK has plenty of those)? In addition, he represents South West Hertfordshire, which is part of Hertfordshire, where less than 1% is Muslim, a county where 90% is either Christian or has no religion (27.3%), so again, what gives, personal interest or unofficial messenger?

The blunt cold issue is that a cleric went against the established order and Shari’ah Law intervened directly and definitively, which I admit is my rather simplistic view on the matter.

In an age where culling over 30% of the planets population could solve food issues, housing issues and several other issues, we seem to embrace the solution that does not get us anywhere. Now it is time to get back to an earlier statement and explain my reasoning. In our day and age, capital punishment should not be seen as a bad thing, we should see this as the ultimate form of accountability. Consider the News in Brisbane where “Cole Miller, 18, was allegedly struck in the head from behind as he walked with a friend through the Chinatown Mall about 3.35am yesterday (AEST)” (at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/01/03/07/16/young-man-randomly-king-hit-while-walking-through-brisbane-mall-overnight). Why not ‘reward’ Armstrong Renata and Daniel Maxwell with the death penalty for such a cowardly attack? I feel certain that after a few of these executions teens will get hit in the head from behind a lot less. Why was he attacked in the first place? That is still for a court to decide, but too often and for too long the victim and its family gets to suffer whilst the courts ‘go soft’ too often on the transgressors and it is not because there are so many jobs or there are so many apartments available. As stated, it is for a court to decide and there is of course the need for evidence, because we know how it ended, but how did it get started? I do not have the facts, but that is an important element in Common Law, I am just no longer willing to see that the abolishment of capital punishment is a good idea.

I also mentioned cowardice earlier, for this I need to address the issue of targeted killing. You see, the law as is seems to revere ‘non-permanent’ solutions. In all that people are faced with dangers and risks. Consider that 70% lives in a legal way, no crimes committed, now we get 29.9991% that does have a criminal side, for that we have the law, I do not oppose this, they are criminals of all kinds, from pickpockets, to robbers to murderers, for those we have the law. There is a very small group, 0.0009%, this group is so malignant, so violent (read: extremely fanatic or terrorist), that their presence is a direct threat to the people and to our way of life. In all this, we ‘hide’ behind Common Law and its settings, like it is a Golden Calf (I am referring here to Exodus 32:1–6), how dare we revere a book to that level whilst knowingly endangering the people we swore to protect, are those victims in that same view not degraded to simple human sacrifices for the existence of a book of rules? How can we sacrifice those lives and are we not willing to take the lives who are knowingly and intentionally threatening those innocent (and some less innocent) lives? Are we not bound to protect the people in any accountable way we possibly can? It is the word accountable that should have opened the door to targeted killing a long time ago, I am not referring to 9/11; I am referring to events even before that. To the days of Baader Meinhoff and the Rote Armee Fraktion. Italy had the Red Brigade, Japan the Red Army and that list goes on for a while. We seem to focus on Islamic groups, yet we forget that the Ku Klux Klan, White Power groups as Christian groups and most other religions have their terrorist organisations, groups with members focused on extreme violence against a specific group or a nation in general, as such, when that government has a direct responsibility to keep its citizens safe, where is the logic to not pursue these extremists with all options, including terminal ones?

So by what standard are we judging?

We seem to push our standards onto others, whilst in most western European nations we have only succeeded in making a bigger mess, whilst not holding anyone accountable for anything, as I see it, Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr decided on a course of action, here (Australia, UK, Canada, sometimes the US too) we all believe in freedom of speech, yet In Islamic nations there seems to be an interpretation that ‘crimes that are dangerous to an Islamic society‘ are strictly dealt with by holding that person accountable. Please consider that I am voicing a view based on the ‘facts’ as I see it published, I am not stating on the ruling of the specific court case of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr as I do not have all the facts on that case. And consider again, why is the voice of David Gauke quoted and not from the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP? In this case it is his voice as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that sets the tone of how we as a Commonwealth (read: United Kingdom) shall deal with our allies, our connected nations and our enemies, not David Gauke. In Australia Foreign Minister Julie Bishop stated today that the Australian government is deeply disturbed by Saudi Arabia’s mass execution of 47 people that same approach was taken by Canada where Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion condemns Saudis over Mass Execution (including the execution of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr). So why did the article by Martin Chulov not mention the big names from Canada and Australia within that article? OK, in all fairness, the response from Julie Bishop was only voiced a few hours ago, but the Canadian voice was given yesterday, plenty of time to include that one, it seems to me that the article is about careful ‘voicing’ what does not really matter for the political field that becomes a lot less maneuverable over the coming year, another fact conveniently ignored.

All this regarding the standard a sovereign nations holds. We might not agree and we can voice that, but we must equally accept that every nation has its own rights in dealing with transgressors, even if we are too unwilling to do this ourselves. Consider that hypocrisy is knowingly not practicing what you tell others to do (like having just laws against crime and for victims), now consider that Irony is becoming a judge after illustrating the failure of law.

So is this a mere case of Hypocritical Irony?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Armstrong Renata, Baader Meinhoff, Brisbane, Catholic Education Resource Center, Cayetano Ripoll, Cole Miller, Common Law, Commonwealth Law, Conservatives, Daniel Maxwell, David Gauke, Elizabeth Peiffer, financial secretary to the Treasury, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Foreign Office, Home office, hudud crimes, Iran, Julie Bishop, Ku Klux Klan, Liberals, Martin Chulov, Muslims, Rote Armee Fraktion, Rt Hon Philip Hammond, Saudi Arabia, Shari'ah Law, sharia law, Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, South West Hertfordshire, Stephane Dion, white power groups

January 3, 2016 · 11:12

An outlying frame of prediction

The Guardian had another interesting article to present, it came online on Jan 1st, but I just read it a mere moment ago. The nice part that this is about data, it is a little bit more about statistics, but I am not a statistician, I am a Data Miner. The title ‘Alarmingly for pollsters, EU referendum poll results depend heavily on methods‘ gave me the jolt I needed (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/01/eu-referendum-polling-results-depend-methods). From my point of view, the entire exercise is a failed event, no matter how you slice it. Before we go into the results, let’s take a quick look at the nations involved:

UK, population 65,081,276
France, population 67,063,000
Germany, population 81,276,000
Italy, population 60,963,000
Spain, population 46,335,000
Sweden, population 9,816,666
Finland, population 5,475,000
Denmark, population 5,673,000
Portugal, population 10,311,000

Now look at two quotes: “It found strong support for the UK’s continuing membership, with an average of 53% of respondents favouring Britain’s continuing membership across nine other countries surveyed“, which might be fair enough, but then we get quote two, which is “Only in Norway, which is not a member of the European Union, would a slight plurality, of 34% to 27%, prefer to see the UK leave and join it outside the club“, this is interesting, because Norway is not one of the nine countries in the mix, which now implies that additional nations had been interviewed, so what happened, the others were less in favour?

Now we add the optional considerations “ICM also investigated the appetite in all these countries to call time on their own membership, in the event that their country staged an in/out referendum“, So ICM had another reasoning entirely, the ‘in the event that their country staged a referendum‘ is central to this, because that means that the questionnaire, the hypotheses and the methodology would be different from the get go, which is not even that central in my thinking process, but it is elemental to the entire event. Now, the question becomes whether this is all part of ICM Research a UK Market Research company, was it done as part of the umbrella called Creston Insight, or perhaps even a third part and I am linking the wrong ICM to the wrong company.

These are all valid considerations and in my case the assumption was done intentionally (and most likely to be correct).

You see the paragraph in the Guardian “Alarmingly for the polling industry, however, the result substantially depends on the method used. Nineteen of the 21 polls were done online, and among these the average advantage for remain shrivels to a dangerously slim two points. But the two telephone surveys that have been undertaken point to far bigger pro-EU leads of 17 and 21 points” shows the issue for me. The paragraphs result in the question, were 19 nations interviewed? If so, why are they not all mentioned, in another option, were two methodologies used in the nine countries? One via phone and one via online, which makes perfect sense, but then an even amount of polls should have been used. All the article does is wonder how reliable the approach is, and if at all, are politicians even interested in doing it fair and square?

You see, if the results can sway a lingering vote (which is a given fact) than we can see that the poll could be used to sway some to ‘follow’ the largest group (with a tie a much harder thing to influence), but influence is a given.

For me, the number one issue were none of these items, in my case it was the mention at the very end. The quote “ICM interviewed a representative sample of at least 1000 adults online in each of nine European countries on 15 and 30 November 2015. Interviews in each country have been weighted to the profile of adults living within it” this is the issue, because a sample of 1,000 can never ever be representative of a population of 81 million, not even representative of a population of 46 million, there is no amount of weighting that can give anything but the roughest of estimations. The more representative the sample is for households, the larger the interviewing sample needs to be. There might have been the slightest reliability if a sample of at least 10,000 was used per nation and I use the word ‘slightest’ in the most liberal of ways. The moment we introduce, gender, income and education 10,000 might not slice it either. You see, yes, weighting can be applied, but than a single response could represent a group of 50,000-100,000, how reliable do you think that one voice would be regarding the other 49,999-99,999?

1,000 might be budget based, but this would then reflect a budgeted population that holds no reliability at all.

Sampling can be a real science, but when we see frequency weighing to this amount, we can safely say that science has been replaced by educated guessing, which is not the way to go. Consider France for a moment. Consider that in regions people feel very different, the two regions where Le Pen are powerful, they will not be in favour of the EEC at all, the others regions might be (read: might be). Now consider that France has 22 administrative regions, so in fairness we get roughly 50 responses per region, 25 males and 25 ladies, so per education level en perhaps even per age group, how much remains? How representative are these 25 people for that region? Now consider that not every region has the same population, so the 50 people representing the 11 million that make up for get a very different weight from those representing the 4 million in Normandy. Are you catching on how utterly unreliable those numbers have become? And how is this done for the UK? Or did ICM decide to get in quick and fast so the capitals make up for the bulk of the votes, which in case of Sweden makes sense as the bulk lives in Stockholm, Goteborg or Malmo. So as there is a hint of truth that it might all be about methodology, the required setting can never be met by 1,000 responses per nation as I see it, in addition there is still the unlisted Norway. So ether the article made a few jumps (which could be fair enough) or the reference to ICM in all this should be answerable to a lot more questions than the article is currently giving.

I need to end this with one final quote: “if the huge differences between online and telephone surveys persist, one method or the other can expect to face a bruising referendum, because they cannot both be right“, from the parts I responded to, there is another option all together, neither are correct. They are not flawed, but wrong for the simple fact of sampling size and the quote given “in the event that their country staged an in/out referendum“, which means that there would have been a different hypothesis that needed answering and even then, the sample of 1,000 would never been have anywhere near useful.

A group of 9,000 can never be representative of a group surpassing a third of a billion that should be massively clear to anyone from the get go, even more so when you consider the different lifestyles and values held in Scandinavian nations versus most of Western Europe and that is just the tip of the statistical considerations.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Île-de-France, Creston Insight, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, ICM, Italy, Le Pen, methodology, Normandy, polling, polling data, Portugal, Spain, statistics, the Guardian, UK

January 2, 2016 · 11:30

Costing in the key of life

Over the last decade, political parties have squandered the needs of their constituents. Liberals, conservatives and Labour alike in both the UK and Australia. I have seen the pressure as housing is no longer an options for many. It is a skewed approach to a solution that fit only the truly wealthy. It is a system that has been ignored, shovelled all over the place and no one has done anything serious to address it. How much longer can this go on?

Yesterday’s article in the Guardian by Robert Booth is only the tip of the iceberg that sank the good ship lollipop (at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jan/01/london-flats-costing-up-to-1m-outsell-more-affordable-homes). The title ‘London flats costing up to £1m outsell more affordable homes‘ is on one side deceptive on the other side it is illustrative of several administrations that have not considered any solution, just a propagation of the Status Quo. The quote ‘sold more than twice as many two-bedroom apartments costing between £650,000 and £1m as cheaper homes priced at about £300,000‘ is partially deceptive. You see when you see the data ‘Sales of London homes banded by asking price per square foot’, we see the numbers, but what is missing is not ‘what is sold‘ but the metric ‘available places that people can afford‘, Even higher educated barristers admitted to the bar will not be able to show an annual income of £200,000, which means that even the highest educated are not in line for anything decent any day soon. In Australia the Commonwealth Bank of Australia is now marketing the alternative in the trend of ‘Use your spare room to help pay off your mortgage!‘, they voice it like ‘my new business‘, but in the end, it is a risky approach to either a mortgage that is higher than you bargained for or one that was outside your reach an they are voicing the ‘entrepreneurial’ edge to hide the risk. What if that person suddenly gets into a financial wash? What if the Granny involved dies? All elements that take weeks if not months to resolve and the mortgage is still due. In addition permits might be needed. Nothing of that is clearly shown. The entire housing market is in a dangerous place because the political parties have ‘conveniently’ ignored the lower branches of income and in all that the rent is also still rising whilst incomes are not moving forward. So we are in a place where London, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth are pricing their cities into non-sustainable situations and it has been going on for the better part of two decades. All these places have been trailing demand for over a decade by a decadent amount, whilst they should have been ahead of the curve for at least a decade.

When we look at the following quote in the Guardian “Campbell Robb, the chief executive of homelessness charity Shelter. “It is promising to see the government finally focusing on building more homes. But the only way to truly solve this housing crisis is for both the mayor and central government to finally prioritise building homes that Londoners on ordinary incomes can afford to rent or buy, instead of just higher earners.”“, question marks should be clearly placed, because ‘finally focusing on building more homes’ should have started in 2003 in both London and Sydney. Now, we have to accept that the city is no longer an option for many, yet when we look 4 minutes away from there we see the same trend of shortage. We are face with either not enough, or not affordable. A increasingly larger population in Sydney is now confronted that their income will at best support the rent of a mere studio apartment, meaning that the bulk must rely on 2 incomes to get anything above a one bedroom apartment, more than that, the current growth of rent means that any year that an annual increase of 3% is not met or exceeded, the living standard goes down on a quarterly base. These numbers might sound scary, but compared to London it is nowhere near as bad as it gets. The political parties have abandoned its population all for the need and premise of inviting wealth into the UK and Australia, whilst there is no evidence that these people are spending a great deal in those places, other than supporting and funding new unaffordable buildings. This goes far beyond these mere borders, we see a similar evolution in the Netherlands, where the issue is even more interesting as larger proportions of the Netherlands are facing a similar issue we see in London and Sydney. There is no ignoring the act that the Netherlands is only a fraction of the size of the UK (and an even more diminishable part of Australia), which of course drives prices up even faster. The Guardian article shows the most dangerous part at the very end with the quote “Since 2009, the fastest growing locations for new housing have been Barnet, Brent, Croydon, Newham and Wandsworth. In Croydon, the price of dozens of flats in the Coombe Cross development have increased by around a quarter, with one-bedroom flats rising £63,000 to £287,950“, now implying that the outer doughnut is no longer affordable, moreover, the fact that not more alerts are ringing all over Whitehall with an increase of 25% is even more unsettling. The average UK salary might be set at £26,500, but that implies that well over 50% of the UK is faced with a house price well over 1,000% of their income, making it never an option. That same trend is seen in Australia, where the median house price is now set at one million, setting the house price on average between 1,500% and 2,000% of their income, an issue that could have been avoided if the parties a decade ago had set clear paths in motion to battle this dangerous trend. Whilst both places are steering towards the New York unaffordability we are also faced with a situation that our values of life are in equal decrease, because as we move from nations that are no longer ‘working to live’, but nations that moved to ‘live to work’, our values will diminish faster and faster and it is all due to a path of greed and a path of flaccid and unreliable politicians. Labour UK 1997 – 2010, Labour AUS 2007 – 2013, in Australia partial fault is also with the Liberals as John Howard was sailing the good Ship Wallaby from 1996 – 2007. All parties that seemed to forget that not everyone can afford to live on a $100K+ income and we will be paying for their shortcomings for a long time to come.

I wonder if it ever gets properly solved without having to resort to ‘culling’ the population at large.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Australia, Barnet, Brent, Campbell Robb, CBA, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, conservaties, Croydon, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Housing Australia, housing UK, John Howard, John Major, Julia gillard, Kevin rudd, Labour, Liberals, London, Melbourne, Mortgage, Netherlands, Newham and Wandsworth, Perth, Robert Booth, Sydney, the Guardian, Tony Blair, UK, Whitehall

December 29, 2015 · 11:19

Ignorance is not an option

Moments of scandal within the IDF are rare, but oh boy, when they do happen, they don’t seem to be light ones. That was the first thought I had when I updated my news brief last night and the news ‘Israel’s armed forces shocked at dismissal of missile defence chief‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/28/israel-armed-forces-shocked-dismissal-missile-defence-chief-yair-ramati) caressed my pupils. Yair Ramati an Israeli veteran was sacked for a “grave breach of information security”, the added quote “Israeli media reports said Ramati had broken protocol when he transferred documents to his computer, making them easier to steal” was an additional reason for concern. Israel, a nation that has been under attack for decades, where Muslim fanatics will seek any way to get a hold of information that can further any anti-Israeli cause got a little help when Yair Ramati transferred documents to his personal computer. Now the issue is not that simple, because I myself tend to hold much higher levels of protection on my own computer than the corporate networks tend to have, as such it would be safe, but infrastructure and the rules on them are clear in most networks, even more so in the slightly less trusting environment of the IDF, so what gives?

In the world of cyber, ignorance is no longer an option, ignorance can quite literally get you and your friends killed. Socially, Financially or actually killed in a death certificate kind of way, the IDF (read: Mossad Cyber division) is very aware of that and for a person like Yair Ramati to make a mistake like that, is it complacency or just plain stupidity?

Well, I am less on the side of stupidity, because stupid people do not head the Iron Dome project, they just remain janitors; so should we ‘over-analyse’ this? Yes we should, mainly because complacency is a massive issue. We all do this at times. Any person who states no is either lying to you or will soon be lying to you. We all drop the ball at times, the error might be small and it will not be to the extent of copying files to a personal computer, but those moments will happen. Phishers, hackers and others are all awaiting you to make that basic flaw one day. The only excuse where such a flaw might be excused (to some extent) is burnout. We get to be too exhausted and in one moment we think ‘oh whatever’ the moment you endanger it all.

That is the moment we need to worry about, because it will always happen.

ABC had an interesting quote “Three people familiar with Mr Ramati said, on condition of anonymity, that he had improperly handled classified documents but was not accused of criminal misconduct like espionage“(at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-28/israeli-missile-defence-director-dismissed-over-security-breach/7056400). From the data I have on Yair Ramati I feel like I should explicitly agree (not that my view can be expertly vetted), but a man like Yair Ramati with decades of loyal service does not commit espionage as I see it, the state of Israel will use his services again and again and with the last three years of missile attacks, I reckon burn out set in and Yair Ramati had his ‘oh whatever‘ moment. This event is a wakeup call for the Israeli security services in more than one way, because this situation could have more than one person in such a predicament. Some of the boffins at the IDF are in dire need of some mental health support, not in the way that they are unbalanced, they actually are, as some of them are exhausted!

A side Hamas and Hezbollah might be hoping for at present, you see when the really good ones are too tired mistakes are made and those mistakes will be exploited. And these exploitation might be on an additional side too. You see, as ABC reported “Israel has received hundreds of millions of dollars in US funding for the three missile defence systems, whose private contractors include Boeing Co, Raytheon, and Elbit Systems“, what happens when its main conductor is no longer creating the symphony? What will that mean for the product at large? We might focus on Iron dome, but the stretch goes a lot further than this. Consider places like Ashot Ashkelon Industries Ltd. People like Haim Defrin and Julian Cohen, unlike the board with people like Avi Felder, Yoram Shechter, Yehuda Gai et al. Haim and Julian are in the thick of things. With additional military pressures and of course the responsibility to get the highest quality, they are under constant need (read: pressure) to deliver, when were they taken aside, to unwind, educate them on common cyber sense and when were their stress levels reduced? Not to mention their parent company IMI (Israel Military Industries). For every organisation, there tends to be an In Bitching Mode overall whining umbrella corporation, nes paz?

So in that light, it is not entirely impossible that Udi Adam and Avi Felder at IMI could be facing dilemmas of a similar kind within their infrastructure, the question becomes, is it happening, is it containable and unlike the step made now by sacking Yair Ramati, can a solution be found to reinvigorate the soul of the loyal population that has been pushed and pushed again and again?

You see, some might see the transgression by Yair Ramati as a part of legal and security (not debating that), but we all forget that Common Cyber Sense is equally Operations, Strategy and HR. HR has a much bigger role to play, because if this is stress and burnout, than it is clear in my view that HR failed the people who have been loyal to their infrastructure, success all the time is an illusion, a person will fail to some extent, the issue is to make sure that the damage is averted. I cannot state whether this was an option for Yair Ramati due to the size of the transgression, but certain questions are asked to the lesser extent. It is the Guardian quote “The former director of the Israeli atomic energy commission, Uzi Eilam, told Israel Radio he had known Ramati for 30 years and found the news hard to believe“, in a place like Israel, when a person with 3 decades of knowledge has an issue, my view is that the dismissal might not be an overreaction, but the issues leading to this are a lot more important than we realise and another set of proper investigations (by the right people) is an essential next step.

Ignorance is not an option and the question becomes was that ignorance just in the court of Yair Ramati, or had that ball been dropped by his superiors in another field at an earlier stage?

It is not a question I can answer with the information I have, but there are enough indicators to ask that question out loud, now it is up to the right people over there to ask a similar question and it is up to them to do some proper investigations.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as ABC, Ashot Ashkelon Industries Ltd, Avi Felder, Boeing Co, Elbit Systems, General Udi Adam, Haim Defrin, IDF, IMI, Iron Dome, Israel, Israel Military Industries, Julian Cohen, Raytheon, the Guardian, Udi Adam, Uzi Eilam, Yair Ramati, Yehuda Gai, Yoram Shechter

December 24, 2015 · 09:33

Where the insane runs the asylum

The Guardian had an unsettling article yesterday (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/22/david-cameron-us-america-refuses-british-muslim-family-disneyland). Now we all know that US protocol is not completely up to scrap. It gets enforced by people and certain systems are updated by people, so things will go bump into the night. For a family of 11, trying to get their Christmas dream in play, that fact must be overwhelmingly unsettling. You see, they were refused to get to the US. The issue “a family party of 11, about to embark on a dream holiday for which they had saved for months, were approached by officials from US homeland security as they queued in the departure lounge and told their authorisation to travel had been cancelled, without further explanation“.

On the one side… No scrap that!

There are two sides, either there is a genuine issue and in that case DHS would have had to have updated the British security services. If that is not the case than we have a first case of evidence that the DHS data systems are now so garbled it can no longer distinguish between friend or foe, which is another matter entirely.

So “Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, has written to the prime minister she is concerned that a growing number of British Muslims are saying they have had similar experiences of being barred from the US without being told the reasons for the exclusion“, this is indeed an issue.

Friedrich Nietzsche: A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything

First we must acknowledge that the US has not given a reason, so we are merely speculating, yet why avoid tourist income? Well, the Canadian Star had reported on a similar issue in March 2015, here we see the following quote: “United States Customs and Border Protection refused to comment on the Al-Rawi incident, but said travellers are responsible for proving their innocence“, so a tourist is regarded as guilty until proven innocent? How does that relate to the Law that is unless the Supreme Court states that presumption of innocence does not apply to tourists and Muslims and that should be a barrel of fun for everyone all over!

From my side, I always tend to keep an open mind, but here I have too many questions. refusal means flags, flags means data, that data should be shared with British Security services, if not, then why are we allies with America? Because they are so powerful? They remain utterly bankrupt in my eyes, the fact that they buckled a few times and the fact that the press is now looking at Russia as the possible salvation for the Syrian situation should be ample signs that America has outlasted their power base. The fact that the Canadian example involves a physician from Toronto General Hospital gives way to even more questions as this was not some plumber with a small business, it was a doctor with a position and a solid foundation for the future of his family, the idea that he wants to throw that away for an uncertain live in a nation now ruled by bigotry is not really that reliable a source, is it? I would choose live in any town in Canada over any city in the US any day of the week, but that’s just me!

Havelock Ellis: The place where optimism most flourishes is the lunatic asylum

“The MP, having “hit a brick wall” in her own attempts to get answers from the American embassy, has asked the prime minister to press US officials for an explanation for the Mahmood family’s exclusion“, which is interesting, the fact that an elected official is not receiving any answers leans towards the fact that the issue is not founded and that the lack of foundation implies unreliable data.

You see, an individual might not get an answer, an elected official (in this case Labour MP Stella Creasy, would have had access to a higher echelon of staff, meaning the answer ‘security flag’ could have been received. It will then be up to the British Security Services to resolve this (or investigate this). At which point the mere notice “We apologise, yet information has been obtained that regards you and your family a possible risk“. Now that might not be nice to hear, but that also means there is something to work from. As British Security Services are on average 300% more efficient than the US alphabet teams, more info would have been begotten. In my mind the question now becomes, if US data is unreliable, how come, who has been filling up that part of the system? The old ‘Garbage in Garbage out’ applies, even to today’s systems (even a little more when you see some of the assumptionary techniques Palantir Government allows to use). That last part needs a little explanation, actually Palantir has a good handle on it. You should read ‘THE POKÉMON PROBLEM: A NEW ANTI-PATTERN‘ (at https://www.palantir.com/2009/03/the-pokemon-problem/). As I see it (read: assumption), some analysts have been rehashing data, iteration upon iteration. So as such, some given elements will become the anchor while it should be nothing more than a passing event that is linked to an ACTUAL anchor. You see the article has ‘the’ solution with ‘the visitor pattern‘, yet consider, when someone makes these files, using temp files (as any analyst will do), now consider that those temp files are not properly managed and over a set of iterations that value was saved in the file for speed reasons. So the end of that article reads: “We now have easy re-factoring, no resource leaks, and have simplified calling code. And finally: there are no new bugs to be introduced by callers that aren’t sure how to use our resource. Looks like we caught ‘em all!”

True, there were no resource leaks, they were possibly written in a temporary variable by an analyst and not correctly wiped when needed. In this instance groups of people are wrongly classified, more irritating is that it could also clear people who should not have been. This solution is nothing more than an indication on how easily a mere flag can go wrong. The US manages bulk data on a massive scale on a daily basis, so one mistake is not an assumption, it is a guarantee, a system drained, stretched and under resourced is leaving a mark, now on people in different ways, a massive problem for the US government no matter how you slice it.

James L. Petigru: South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum

The quote “Mahmood said neither he nor his brother, Mohammad Zahid Mahmood, had ever been in trouble with the police. They have been told by the airline they were to travel with that the £9,000 cost of their flights, for which they had been saving for many months, will not be refunded” gives way to even more issues. Not only were they deprived of status, they are deprived of funds. At which point we could see either an immediate refund, or if not given an overhaul of the US tourist industry. You see, the US would be required to give mandatory answers before the flight is paid for, that means that any interest in travelling to the US must be met with clearance, so not the 25,000 travelers, no the 354,000 interested parties must be vetted, which means that the DHS would run out of resources almost instantly, implying that they become useless even before they are needed. In addition, it also seems that they have a brother in Southern California. Perhaps there is an issue with data there (too)?

So how does this sit with the Prime Minister?

A Downing Street spokeswoman said Cameron would consider the issues raised in Creasy’s letter and respond in due course, which is of course fair enough, immediate response would not possible without all the facts and the US Embassy does not seem to be given any.

From the view I have, I don’t have one perse! You see data is at the core of this, but beyond the core there is the policy and the policy in play has been broken for some time now, the issue is that even in a broken policy, or should I say especially in a broken policy things will go wrong and the wrong people are labelled, it happens and for this family that is unfortunate, yet in all this the equal stress is that those who should be labelled are not, because that is a reality the US might not be properly investigating, mainly because it can’t, the data could realistically have become that cross contaminated.

How much value should you hold to my view?

Oscar Levant: There’s a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line

My knowledge of data got me partially here, my knowledge/experience part of that way, you see on one side you do not go lightly with such rejections, not even the US, so we should expect smoke, but the two examples shows clear questionable issues and I do not believe that this is only two instances, the real amount will be much larger, especially when we consider the UK, Canada, France and a few others. So how to use a data system where the data is no longer reliable? Because that is the question that is currently in question. If it turns out to be mere policy than the US will be in more problem than they realise because discrimination of that magnitude will not go unanswered for long.

So can this still be a mere security issue?

Yes, that remains possible but in that case another response should have been voiced by more than one party, no matter what, the cancellation of funds in excess of £9,000 will be another topic still, because the cancellation was not due to any fault of the travelling party, which is an issue the UK Watchdog should address and they should address it very soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Al-Rawi, British Security Services, Canadian Star, David Cameron, Friedrich Nietzsche, Havelock Ellis, James L. Petigru, Mohammad Zahid Mahmood, Oscar Levant, Palantir, Stella Creasy, Stella Creasy MP, the Guardian, Toronto General Hospital, UK Watchdog, Walthamstow

December 23, 2015 · 21:44

Twenty One Five

It is the end of the year and I will take a break for a week (not a promise at present). You see, we have had a few instances that will affect us all in the next 18 months, so it is also very astute that we take this time to recognise these events.

France

France is still a number one issue for the EEC. This is in several ways, not just because of the attacks, which are taking a toll, but the political landscape is under fire. The fact that the Socialist party denounced their own members, hoping they would add themselves to the part of Sarkozy (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35035230) seems to be a major issue that many are ignoring. So, a party will denounce its own members hoping that Front Nationale will not get the area. How is that political? The quote the Independent had: “The investigation is the latest in a series of financial embarrassments for the Le Pens. The Front National is the subject of a criminal investigation over allegations of “fraud and embezzlement” reportedly relating to over-charging its own candidates for election materials in 2012“, now, I cannot state whether this is true or not, but consider that both parties of Hollande and Sarkozy has had a forever oversized budget that goes well over 800% of what FN ever had, when were they properly investigated? Well there was (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28103223), it implies that Sarkozy got support for his elections in 2007 from Gadhafi himself. A man (Sarkozy), claiming to be a mere 4 million in value? In France that is not that much, so there is a lot more going on. Francois Hollande claims his net value to be 2 million, in all this, after they have been in power, the funds and the rewards, that is all they have, or is that all they have on paper? A fair question, yet in all this it is Marine Le Pen that is getting hit with the investigative heat, whilst she was never in power and the fear that both Hollande and Sarkozy show gives more and more weight to the frightful question: ‘What if she really has a valid point?’, a question many fear addressing?

So is the Front Nationale nothing more than a storm in a tea cup? That remains to be seen, the economic disaster that France currently is, is nothing to ignore, too many players are making light of a 5.7 trillion dollar debt. A debt that is held outside of that nation, whilst its own economic forecast is not moving forward. France cannot meet a mere 1% in interest at present, 57 billion just to break even, it might seem little but the present parties have been unable to keep a proper budget, which means that none of the debt is reduced, or even maintained, it just grows!

It would be too hypocritical to slap Greece around for this and ignore France (or Italy, or the UK for that matter). Restoration is what FN is fighting for and we all know the current path is NOT working, FN is willing to change that path, and corporations like Natixis have both Sarkozy and Hollande in their pockets.

OK, I will correct that statement! When Natixis calls, no one in the Élysée Palace will not pick up the phone, something that might happen when Marine Le Pen takes office, which is a dreadful thought for Natixis, especially as they need the current game to go on as long as possible. And if you think that Natixis is something small, then think again. It is privately owned and one of the most powerful banks on the planet, a real French player. Fitch rates Natixis at ‘F1’ (at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFit94468520151221), it doesn’t get to be any better for those short term loans. Natixis stays away from front pages and it could devour the Bank of Scotland without too much effort, interesting that such a power player in economics is not seen with the political player it wields.

How does this involve Marine Le Pen?

That is the kicker, it does not, more important, there is more and more evidence that she does not want to get comfy with these power players. The moment the French population realises that they were sold down the line and that Marine Le Pen was the one trying to prevent it that is the moment that things in France really turn ugly. There was a reason why Hollande would give up two regions with voters, just like that! The price of what is behind curtain number three is too scary for both him and Sarkozy, a fact not revealed by many people who could have done so.

The second part in all this is Nigel Farage, for if France is going Frexit through Le Pen, Farage remains the pushing ‘champion’ for Brexit. And in all that we must realise that when either Brexit of Frexit hits the front door, a panic will hit Europe in many ways. Now we see ‘Nigel Farage says Ukip’s MP Douglas Carswell ‘can put up or shut up’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/18/nigel-farage-ukip-douglas-carswell-leadership). I saw this issues rise on May 16th (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/05/16/you-be-kipping/). Then I had the quote “But a senior UKIP source said he had no doubt that a coup was under way, despite O’Flynn’s claims of loyalty. The source also claimed the deputy chairman, Suzanne Evans, as well as the party’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, and much of the UKIP press office in London appeared to be working together to undermine Farage”. You see Carswell was not doing too well as a Conservative, so he turned seats and Farage wanted senior players, he badly needs them, in all that the issue was that Carswell just wants a comfy seat, so when UKIP did not make the growing curve we all expected (they still made massive strides forward) Carswell had to make alterations for his own future. See here the issue, not for the future for his party or his constituents, his own future, which is not the same.

This is where I differ from the Guardian. The Guardian states “The row reignites longstanding tensions between the two men ever since Carswell defected from the Conservatives 18 months ago. However, this is the first time Carswell has called for him to resign outright“, which is actually true, but the pushes I saw 7 months ago have been in play for that same amount of time, gives way to the deliberation regarding the statement whether ‘outright resignation’ is not just a marketing gimmick and undermining is not the same, so why is that subtle difference not outspokenly dealt with in this article?

The part in the article that does play is seen here: “Pressed on whether Carswell would have to leave if he will not curb his criticisms, Farage said: “We cannot have and I don’t think the NEC will allow one individual to give an impression to the country that Ukip is divided when actually it is very united”. The Ukip leader also claimed to have the unanimous support of his party’s national executive, his MEPs and 91.4% of Ukip voters based on a recent opinion poll“, which is at the heart of the matter, the 4 million votes were for Farage and not Carswell. My Conservative side enjoys the infighting as I am not in favour of UKIP winning, but the truth is clear, as the Americans would state: “there is a very Benedictian side to Douglas Carswell that makes me shiver when he enters the room“, I feel that same way, Douglas Carswell is about himself, I do not trust a person like that back into the party, yet he also has the danger of rustling the wrong feathers, because when his play is clearly shown it will unite UKIP even stronger, a side us Conservatives are not that keen on at present, UKIP remains a danger of growing vastly over the next year, they pushed in second place in too many places, unity may give drive to that. In this I believe in the Conservative solution for the UK, it is a painful one, but the debts have been too great to leave them unattended and if Frexit becomes a reality, those pains could kill us economically for long time, reducing debt is the only solution here.

This is where this annual tale of two nations ends. You see both Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen wants massive change, yet the difference is that Cameron and Osborne accept how things were and they are changing the patterns of where we end up, which is why the issues in the UK are hard and they will not let up any day soon, in France both François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy will work whatever deal they can get giving in to power places like Natixis, which is good for their long term value, but it will do the people of France little good, because that debt is not a mill stone, it is a gravestone for a nameless person that they carry around their necks. Something France should not accept, France is too proud, my worry is why the French do not see that Sarkozy and Hollande were part of that problem all along. Perhaps they do realise it and they are not just ready to put all their faith in Marine Le Pen, which would be fair enough too.

Twenty One Five was all about economic issues that never got resolved. In all this the US economy remains at a low, revised down again, all that at the end of the year, when Christmas numbers should fuel speculations on how ‘great’ the economy is, we see that predictions are down 0.1%, for a nation that is approaching a debt of 19 trillion, it is not a good thing to look forward to. Some papers iterate on how for 10 years, the US economy grew less than 3%, they all ignore on how spending has not been culled either, is it not weird that as oil prices are so down at this point they are now lifting the export ban on crude oil? So as these panic moves are made, consider that the Dollar is in my opinion set at an inflated point, when that collapses, what happens to the Euro? Because that directly impacts France and its debts and it will hit the UK too. And should you doubt my words in all this (which is always a fair choice) then consider that my doubts on Greece are now finally reflected by the BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35122710). As simple math I was able to do two years ago, they are finally catching on. The quote “With the disbursement of one billion euros, the ESM is supporting the Greek government in its reform process” is a massive delusion. The idea is nice, but Greece does not need a reform, it needs to be rewritten nearly 100%, that is not a reform. Their view on reform is like upgrading your Nissan Micra to a Jeep, it is not an upgrade it is a different car all together, that recognition is still far away and with the Greeks protesting on every corner neither solution will become reality any day soon. The one interesting side is that Greece has no shed its part in Turkey’s Finansbank towards Qatar National Bank SAQ, so either that was a loss point, or the banks are wantonly shifting away from Greece altogether. You can read it in more than one way, yet (at http://www.ekathimerini.com/204547/article/ekathimerini/business/qatars-qnb-acquires-national-bank-of-greeces-stake-in-finansbank), we see the quote “planned the sale of its Turkish unit to plug a capital shortfall identified in European Central Bank (ECB) stress tests in October“, this makes perfect sense for Greece to get rid of it and it opens doors for the Qatar National Bank SAQ too. Now consider the last ramification:

If banks are now dealing with stress tests and they are failing, consider how many of them are held by European players and by American players, how many failed the stress tests and how will it impact European Economic Drivers all over 2016?

This is something you should think about!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Élysée Palace, David Cameron, Douglas Carswell, François Hollande, France, Front Nationale, Gadhafi, George Osborne, Marine Le Pen, Natixis, Nicolas Sarkozy, Nigel Farage, Palace Elysee, Qatar National Bank SAQ, Turkey's Finansbank, UK

December 10, 2015 · 20:49

Defining progress, a deadly process

Something really dangerous was announced today. The Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/09/council-tenants-lose-lifetime-right-to-live-in-property) gives us: ‘Council tenants lose lifetime right to live in property‘, which in itself might not have been a bad thing, yet the text “new secure tenancies with local authorities forced to review contract at end of term” might be a lot more dangerous than people are realising at present. In this I am taking a rare position, which is in support of labour. Now, it might very well be that we are both doing it for different reasons. I agree with David Cameron who stated at the time: “There is a question mark about whether, in future, we should be asking when you are given a council home, is it for a fixed period? Because maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won’t need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector”, which is fine. I will not oppose that, yet instead of making the council tenancies linked to an income with a grace period, setting them to 5 years for all will give huge problems (not just logistics) down the line. In equal measure (which was my issue) is that these temporary tenancies could open up the door to hungry developers to sneakily move in and grow their influence and take over block by block. There have been too many stories (many of them not confirmed) where property developers have had too much influence in areas, not just in the UK. With the greater London area in so much turmoil, adding the dangers of diminished tenancy, those dangers will grow and grow. The problem here is that by the time people act and stop certain acts from being done, too much danger has been imposed to the people who used to live there. So I have an issue with this approach. It is clear that changes are needed, even from the governmental standpoint to grow its own portfolio of affordable housing, but this is not one of those moments as I personally see it. To emphasize on this danger I am taking a look back at the past, the year that Windows 95 became a hot topic of discussion, some regard windows as what was on a PC, but when you look through an actual window, those people in Birmingham got a little more than they bargained for. The article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/behind-the-birmingham-scandal-1609640.html) gives us the dangers that could become a reality again. The quote “This year, the Birmingham urban renewal budget was £38m – for both public and private housing. The problem of matching supply and demand is complicated by the latest variation in housing legislation. Anyone who applies for a grant – on a statutory form – must receive a response from the council within six months. The Government’s object was to take the initiative for urban regeneration out of the hands of councils and their professional planners. The result was a free-for- all in which the self-confident, the articulate (and invariably the prosperous) went to the head of the queue and monopolised the scarce resources” has a front seat here. So Birmingham ended up having two problems. An abundant amount of Ashton Villa fans being the first, the second one was that the brass and the articulate got to have a free go at the Birmingham Piggy Bank. The biggest fear is not the issues that have happened, but the schemes that cannot be stopped because they are still legally valid, so to say, the options that the government did not prepare for. Is that a valid fear? That is the question that matters and my answer is ‘Yes!’. You see, until 2009 we never knew that almost Draconian law would be required to keep bankers in their place, soon we will learn in equally drastic way that tenants are placed in immediate danger, yet with people and housing the problem becomes a lot more pressing and this new 5 year tenancy limit will soon become the danger because of something a member of parliament ‘overlooked’, which is why I side with Labour this one time.

In my view, that danger could have been thwarted by offering the following

A 5 year extension if no equal alternative would be available.
The clear side rule that the 5 year tenancy becomes active when the income has risen more than 30% in the last 3 years (which would still give that person access to rule 1).
An option to become the home owner, which must go to the home owner first and must be public in the second (no under the table deals for developers).

Yet when we see the quote “The new legislation forces councils to offer all new tenants contracts of between two and five years. At the end of the fixed term, local authorities will have to carry out a review of the tenant’s circumstance, and decide whether to grant a new tenancy, move the tenant into another more appropriate social rented property, or terminate the tenancy” is that not what is on the table at present?

You see linked to all this is one part that gives a little credit to Labour, specifically to Shadow Housing minister John Healey. The Financial Times reported “The national auditor is considering whether to investigate the government’s programme of subsidies for home ownership, after Labour raised concerns that it is a waste of public money” (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05703522-9dc7-11e5-b45d-4812f209f861.html#axzz3tuDm7ySX). You see, there is my issue to some extent, in light of the tenancy ruling point’s one and two always made sense, there is no argument here. My issue is that ‘buy to own’ is noble in thought, but as I see it, it is a shadowy entrance point for developers to quietly sneak in and start acquiring the area. Yes it take a fair bit of money, but the returns once the plot is complete is too massive to ignore. In my view this was the option that opened doors we tend to ignore.

There are good guys in this field, we will not deny that, but for every 5 good guys there is one that is a lot shadier than we bargained for. What happens when the overly positive calculations get some of these people to consider a BTL (Buy To Let) option, only to see in year 6 (or a little earlier) that the yields are worse than imagined, when these are ‘sold’ through, who picks up the bonus parts and who got the misrepresented losses invoiced?

They might seem like a different thing, but they are not. This is why I mentioned the issues in the same way I mentioned the Birmingham 1995 event. I believe that unless the legislation is a lot stronger here, the dangers become that these social places become reaping fields for ‘entrepreneurial’ (read exploitative) commerce and the people who always relied on a safe place to sleep will end up having no place at all.

This is where the road between me and Labour differs. You see shadow housing minister John Healey wrote to Sir Amyas Morse, The National Audit Office auditor general “a short-term windfall for builders and buyers at a long-term cost to the taxpayer”, a part I do not completely agree with. I think that the underlying text is “a short-term windfall for builders and buyers at a long-term cost to the taxpayer, which will transfer to developers at a massive loss to both the Treasury and the tax system as a whole”, which is not the same. I agree if someone states that it is my speculation and that John Healey does not go into speculation. To that person I state ‘You are correct, yet in equal measure that legislation should have been intensely tested for optional shortcomings towards developers and exploiters, has that been done?‘ It is my firm believe that it is not. We might all agree that this is not what legislation is about, yet legislation is about setting safety moments and a clear denial of transfer of ownership or a limit to the options any developers has in councils. A side we saw exposed by Oliver Wainwright (at http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities) in: ‘The truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities‘, you see, personally I am not convinced that this has been addressed. It is even possible that certain councils are even more toothless than they were a year ago and that is a bad thing. When you look at the article, take another look at the image with the caption ‘A scale model of London on show at this year’s Mipim international real estate fair in Cannes‘, you think that they gave a second glance at the tens of thousands of pounds that this scale model costs? The returns on that invoice are so massive it is a mere drop on a hot plate. In that environment the Conservatives changed lifetime tenancy. I agree that something had to be done, but the timing is off on both logistics and legislation surrounding this, that is what makes the event a lot more dangerous than parliament bargained for, which is at the heart of my issue here. Some will see “the Royal Mail Group has proposed a fortress-like scheme of 700 flats, only 12% of which will be affordable” as an issue. I think that the quote “The mayoral planning process is based entirely on achieving the maximum number of housing units on any given site, aimed at selling to an international market. The London-wide target of building 42,000 new units per year is predicated on a lot of very high density developments that don’t even comply with the mayor’s own policies on density” shows that the entire issue is greed driven and is not likely to yield anything affordable, which the 5 year tenancy that is likely to change even further. It is very possible that these moves allow the affordable housing to be placed on an income scale, which I would partially favour, but at present as the math does not take realistic economic values in mind, that scale will be based on 10 year old values, which means that the cost of living could be off by 35%, making food not the issue it already is. So in that view affordable housing is there for those who never need to eat, making the tenant deceased in more ways than one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Ashton Villa, Birmingham, Boris Johnson, BTL, Buy to let, Cannes, Conservatives, David Cameron, Financial Times, John Healey, labour party, Mipim international real estate fair, Oliver Wainwright, Royal Mail Group, shadow housing minister, shadow housing minister John Healey, Sir Amyas Morse, the Guardian, The Independent, The National Audit Office auditor general

December 8, 2015 · 20:17

Pen Cil le balancement Élysée Palace

The lashes from Marine Le Pen are now swaying the presidential Palace (massively lose translation). This is not a joke, not a quaint reference. It is the direct consequence of European inaction for well over 2 years. The people have had enough and now, fear is becoming key with the politicians who are relying on Status Quo. The issue goes a lot deeper than most realise and with the acts as shown in the last few days, the boomerang effect that those politicians are achieving could give Front Nationale from Marine Le Pen an even bigger rise.

Consider the following information from the BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35025846) “The nationalist FN got about 28%, ahead of the centre-right Republicans party led by former President Nicolas Sarkozy, which polled just under 27%, and the governing Socialist Party (PS), trailing with 23.5%“, in addition, consider the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/07/marine-le-pen-front-national-france-cowardly-elite ) with “The fact is that France has failed to adapt to the challenges of globalisation. Its education system, for example, is stuck. Studies show that the lycée system increases social inequalities instead of reducing them, which means it is utterly failing in its republican mission to act as a social ladder“, this are just two of several issues that are in the main field of consideration by the French. I am not even getting close to the attacks in France or the Refugee issues in France. Instead, see the actions in opposition, again from the BBC, now at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35035230. Here we see “His Socialist Party (PS) has withdrawn from the second round in two regions to unify the anti-FN vote“, there he is moving away so that HIS opposition can yield more points against Marine Le Pen!

Are you freaking kidding me?

So even before the elections, party B gives their optional seat to party C, because it is afraid that Party A gets too many votes. How is that not treason against your own voters, how is this anything else but a group of people demanding to stay in the main seats and as such they are aggregating votes. In the past I spoke about one of the most powerful non-American economic wielders. The name Natixis, last year they stated (at http://philippewaechter.en.nam.natixis.com/2014/04/07/issues-of-economic-policy-in-france/) “The chart clearly shows that the GDP profile is conditioned by the private demand. Government demand has a positive but monotonic increase of its contribution. Contrary to private demand there are no fluctuations. Net external demand has a negative contribution which is consistent with larger external deficit on the period. There are no surprises in the decomposition“, well spoken by Philippe Waechter, chief economist of Natixis Asset Management. In addition he stated “The stronger private demand could go through incentives for consumers or for companies. Currently, it would not be efficient to go through households. Last year, there was an interesting situation. There exists an instrument of profit-sharing in France (l’épargne salariale). The rule is that employees have to keep this amount of money on a specific account for five years. But from time to time a government wants to use these important amounts to support consumption expenditures. That’s what was done in 2013. It was not a success. Households have kept their saving on their account and have not spent more. A stimulus policy that, at this moment of the cycle, goes to consumers would probably be counterproductive and would fail to boost economic activity“, this now gives us part of the statement from the Guardian in the title ‘France’s cowardly elite is to blame for the rise of Marine Le Pen‘, which comes from Natalie Nougayrède. It is her last paragraph that is the issue “Marine Le Pen has no solution for France’s problems, her economic programme is all about retreating from the outside world and Europe. Her social vision is of a mythical, homogeneous France that never existed. What she has to sell is an illusion. It’s only because so little else is on offer that people are buying”

You see, as I see it: “Marine Le Pen is realising that an unaccountable wave of government is no solution for France’s problems, her economic program is all about cutting of these irresponsible spenders and gamblers who speculate and end up personally rich no matter how the end result falls. Her social vision is of a mythical, homogeneous France that cannot exist as European governments are not held accountable for massive overspending, including previous French presidents. What she has to sell is a nightmare for the exploiters as their gravy train ends. It’s because the damage has been too extreme that the French are considering an extreme change, in their view it is very unlikely to get any worse“.

It is all about the point of view and the fact that current politicians are too afraid (or made to fear) the change that coalitions for partial France are considered out of fear of the upcoming victory of Marine Le Pen.

Now reconsider the words by Philippe Waechter “from time to time a government wants to use these important amounts to support consumption expenditures“, which in itself is not an issue, France is not the only country doing this, many nations have done this in the past (and are still doing it at present). Yet France has been overspending by 5 trillion, which leaves the French people with no options whatsoever, this also means that new venues need to be sought and that has been delayed by too much through too many, which is exactly why the people are desperate for change. The step that follows will impact Europe in many ways, because the first one who leaves the Eurozone might get a deal, yet there will be no price for second place, which is why the Brexit vs Frexit issue is so strong all over the field. You see, when France moves out, the UK and Germany will have no options left, they will have to decide sooner rather than later. Because from the three in the field (UK, France, Italy), leave any one out and that millstone named Eurozone will kill the other two who are left, which will be a massive crises that follows. It also scares the US to no end, so we will hear many ‘phrased’ articles and stories all over the field.

In my view, PM Manuel Valls made a massive mistake, by trying to split France between himself and Sarkozy will only strengthen the fear of them and the willingness towards Marine Le Pen and Front National. Will I be correct? That truth is only a matter of time, but I feel that the early hours of the second round of regional elections will quickly show me to be either correct or wrong, my ego makes me choose option 1. The two regions here PS (Parti Socialiste) is pulling out is clearly in hands of the Le Pen family, with over 40% of the votes, By pulling out the party of Hollande hopes that their 23 percent will add themselves towards Sarkozy who has 27%. Such cowardice should not be rewarded! Whether the French voters will realise this remains to be seen, but I reckon that the Le Pen family will be adamant to inform the voters of this. The fact that both Hollande and Sarkozy are scared of the beautiful niece of Marine Le Pen who rules south Eastern France at present has less to do with looks and more to do with the fact that the parliamentary candidacy of Marion Maréchal-Le Pen for Vaucluse’s 3^rd constituency was publicly confirmed on 25^th April 2012 is pretty much a given. She will have 4 years of experience (at the youthful age of 26) when the elections are up. The fact that she grew from 2008 where she got no seat and 6.29% of the votes whilst now in the first round she took 41% of the votes should not be overlooked either. I cannot state that I know a lot about her, but I don’t believe for one minute that it is about her looks, as the French are used to good looks. France is about business and the fact that the Le Pen family now lead 6 out of 13 regions is a clear indication that the French population is voting a ‘no confidence vote’ to the failed economies of both Sarkozy and Hollande; they are desperate for an improvement and kicking Europe out of their decision line seems to be comfortable to the voters at present. I am not certain whether I can disagree with that view.

The game for the French is about to change in a massive way, I wonder how France will impact the EEC, because they will have a massive impact, just envisioning this is part of the problem, the situation is currently very unique, even (read: especially) for France. In the end, I still believe that this would not have happened to the degree it has, if the EEC had taken a much firmer stance on Greece, that is the side of the EEC that escalated many issues for too many players. Should you doubt that, than consider Italy’s Lega Nord with Matteo Salvini at the helm, who is labeling the euro as a “crime against humanity”. A party that had zero chance in 2012 is now an actual contender for the Italian presidency.

All this because of a warped need for an economic Status Quo.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as François Hollande, France, Front Nationale, Lega Nord, Manuel Valls, Marine Le Pen, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, Nicolas Sarkozy, Parti Socialiste, PM Valls, President Hollande, Vaucluse

December 5, 2015 · 11:13

Perception

Perception is an essential need for all of us. Yes, it is used in videogames where the power of perception allows us to see our foes approach earlier (Fallout series), or it allows the game to play with our minds as floors become ceilings and where statues follow your every move (Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem). Just two of many options, but this is not about gaming or about a videogame. You see perception allows us to perceive the events as they take place. From my perception it is clear that the events in Martin Place were never terrorism, it was merely a case of a mental health crises with a hostage situation and that person happened to be a Muslim.

The events in France were clearly terrorism, it is that clear view that we could all watch that diminished whatever terrorism claim existed over Sydney, and perception does that.

But what about San Bernardino?

You see, that is not a question, it is not THE question, but it is an essential question. The guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/san-bernardino-shooting-tashfeen-malik-isis-connection). Here we see that the FBI is investigating this shooting as an act of terrorism.

To their support we should consider

Suspects attempted to destroy ‘digital fingerprints’
Tashfeen Malik allegedly made pledge of allegiance to Isis in a Facebook post on day of the attack
FBI director James Comey said that there was “no indication that the killers are part of an organised larger group or form part of a cell. There is no indication that they are part of a network.”

In the first three elements, it is important to realise that the first one gives view to premeditation.

These three need to be kept in mind, yet the main issue is not just those three, now I need to push a few quotes together, so you see the view that I also perceive to be.

“Tashfeen Malik, 27, swore fealty to the terror group in a Facebook post on Wednesday, the same day she and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, committed the rampage” is part one, which we now connect to “David Chelsey, a lawyer for Farook and Malik’s family, said many details “do not add up”. “There are a lot of disconnects and there are a lot of unknowns and there are a lot of things that quite frankly don’t add up, or seem implausible,” he told CNN. “It doesn’t make sense. No one has ever seen Syed with any of the things – with some of the things found on the scene, they’ve never seen them with him. The pipe bombs, for example. No one had ever seen him use or have anything like that,” he said“.

Now we get the issue at hand. If we accept David Chelsey’s words as absolute truth, we are faced with at least two scenarios that are a lot harsher than you might consider at present.

In the first, is David Chelsey in absolute lawyer mode? So to say, if the families Farook and Malik require isolation from the events, this is the play to make, which means that his clients might not have told him the truth. They might not have been lying, but that is not the same. Yes, it is possible that they never saw a pipe bomb, but that does not mean that they have not been privy to eccentricities like buying goods in the middle of nowhere when you can buy the same items 15 minutes away from their home. The lawyer might just be doing his job, but in equal measure he is aiding in changing a view from realistic to an intentional attempt to misinform the federal authorities, or more precise his clients are. It is an additional view towards premeditation in the worst case, and an intentional act to colour the glasses of those trying to sway the public.

Why am I stating this?

Consider you are a parent and your child picks up a gun and kills fellow schoolies and teachers, how would you react? When we have a mental health case like Sydney that view is one we can all understand, but what if your child shouts allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, now it becomes a different game, now the parent does whatever he/she does not to lose their own sanity. Can you blame them?

So is the FBI confronted with a case where the family was unaware, in denial or hiding their involvement/ we can state that the lawyer is not helping any of it, but that is not his fault, the FBI’s job does not get to be any easier!

In the second, when we consider the acts from Malik, who was born in Pakistan and travelled on a Pakistani passport, and recently lived in Saudi Arabia. She apparently met Farook online. In addition, the participation of Syed Rizwan Farook now ups the ante in all this. In addition we read “Christian Nwadike, who worked with Farook for five years, told CBS that his co-worker had been different since he returned from Saudi Arabia. “I think he married a terrorist,” Nwadike said“, so here is the issue, how did Christian Nwadike know? I am not stating he is right or wrong, I am asking, what signs were there? You see, I am going somewhere with this. Was Syed Rizwan Farook groomed for terrorism during his engagement period? It seems he lived an isolated life, which goes a long way towards making him an easier mark, yet in that, from the little I know of Muslims, one woman alone could not have done this, which implies that he’s had additional conversations with a Muslim Cleric, one he met whilst in Saudi Arabia, possibly with contacts before and after he came back, which would have gone a long way towards move for extremism, which makes destroying the digital fingerprint essential and possibly that part, if successful is part of the problem because that method can be employed again and not just in the US.

So is that all?

You see, this opens the door to the issue the FBI has been puzzling over for the better part of a decade. Home grown terrorism was always a worry, but the extent shown in San Bernardino gives view that part of all this remained under the radar of the FBI, which is the perception issue they have. They knew they had it, as they were trying to find options on how to deal with this, but in all this the reality is that perception is the only initial weapon a person have to counter the imagination of an extreme fanatic, yet is that enough and what else could there be?

It is not something that is easily answered. You see as FBI director Comey said, there are elements of evidence that will not make sense, but is that because the picture is distorted or is that because elements are missing. That is part of the puzzle that both the FBI and Homeland security are facing at present. This now gets us to the next perception, is this in part Lone wolf terrorism? The act here might not be, but the ‘support’ system behind this, is that part lone wolf terrorism? You see, part of these answers are not here yet and perhaps it will take a while for this to surface, but when we consider the pipe bombs we are also left with other questions. If this was a one way trip, why did the police find the dozen pipe bombs? KSNV, News3LV reports (at http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/story/12-pipe-bombs-thousands-of-ammo-found/sf3rLM0bzEWOxM3pBXLpZA.cspx), “Authorities have revealed 12 pipe bombs and more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition were found inside the San Bernardino suspect’s believed residence“, did they expect to start shooting, get away, go home and load up for the next round? You see, in all this perception is key. Now consider the elements that are required to buy and make these pipe bombs. Are you telling me that this does not get noticed? Well, apparently not. I can go to www.bulkammo.com and get myself 500 Rounds of 7.62x54r for the FN FAL for a mere $241, or $240 for 1000 rounds of 9 mm, which means that they had left for well over $750 in ammo at home. In addition, if they kept a certain lifestyle (spending), were no flags raised by the shifting of purchased goods? If we consider the other elements in play, where did the money come from? Perhaps his job allowed him to prepare to this extent, yet in all this questions come to the surface, a rational mind would expect that this was decently certain to be a one way trip, so why leave bombs and ammo at home? The part made no sense, unless they were not alone, perhaps another party was going to be in attendance but they bailed out at the last moment and as such this act was more hastily executed. It is mere speculation on my side, but that speculation comes from my own perception of the events seen. They could be very wrong!

You see that view is in opposition from the very last quote in the News3LV report “They were equipped and could have committed another shooting but we intercepted that“, did you really? Consider that the San Bernardino Police Department is a mere 3.5 miles away, at normal speed that is 10 minutes, at full speed and sirens no more than 3.5 minutes. That is all the time they would have had because there is an option that patrols are on scene, so getting back home was never truly realistic, so why leave it all there?

Were they head cases to begin with or is the FBI missing a few clues? Clues that David Chelsey is helping to muddy. Not by his choice, because he is representing his clients the best way he can, so I am not having a go at him in any way, shape or form. In addition, the weird act of their landlord to give the press access to their home is actually giving us additional questions. The house in the way it looked, was that how they lived? Did they never have guests and as such was the wife intentionally isolating her groomed co-shooter from the very beginning.

If that is the case, than how does the response from the family as voiced by David Chelsey make sense?

You see perception is an essential element, what we perceive, what others should have perceived and what the authorities perceive from all the data that they are receiving this very moment. How does it all fit?

At present it does not seem to fit at all, apart from the timetable and the fact that they either took no time at all for the ‘first’ shooting being able to get past South Waterman Avenue which then lead to the 4 hour manhunt. Again, this is not to place blame (in this case on the San Bernardino Police Department), but to get us to the question, that as the shooting had passed, how did the couple expect to get back home to pick up more bombs and ammunition? I asked it before and with the added information you too should consider the thought on how they could have gotten back to their homes to load up for more? It merely gives us the question mark and the idea that this was likely never meant to be a party of two. If we accept that speculation we will get to the final question, who else was involved (were more people involved) and what comes next?

What is your perception on this case?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as bulkammo.com, Christian Nwadike, David Chelsey, FBI director James Comey, FN FAL, France, ISIS, James Comey, KSNV, Martin Place, Muslim Cleric, News3LV, Pakistan, San Bernardino, San Bernardino Police Department, Saudi Arabia, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik

Category Archives: Politics

Recent Posts

Archives