Category Archives: Politics

November 26, 2014 · 23:50

Perception from the outside

It is hard to write about this. Not because of the topic, but because of the implications that derive from the thoughts I have. You see, I have thus far always had faith in the intelligence branch. When we look beyond the implied Hollywood drama of all matters, the intelligence branch is a dedicated underpaid group trying to keep its nation and its citizens safe. Yet, what lies beneath the veneer when we look deeper into certain matters. Are they for real or are we all played by the press to some extent?

This is at the foundation, as we cannot rely on any first-hand information, especially when the press is part of it, we are left with a question mark. One that might not need answering, but one that should not be ignored, this is at the core of me, for better or worse, I seek answers.

This all started yesterday when I got wind of a Guardian article at the earliest of dawn, as a final paper was due, I just left it to look at later (that later is now). The article is ‘Lee Rigby murder: internet firm could have picked up killer’s message – report‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/25/lee-rigby-murder-internet-firm-could-have-picked-up-killers-message-report-says).

Now, this should be a shock, especially to the family members of Lee Rigby, so why is this even a story? It starts with the first paragraph “Internet companies face intense demands to monitor messages on behalf of the state for signs of terrorist intent after an official report into the death of Fusilier Lee Rigby said one of his killers wrote on a website – later named as Facebook – of his desire to slaughter a soldier, without the security services knowing“, was this written by someone who had a clue? If we consider CNet (at http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-processes-more-than-500-tb-of-data-daily/), we see that Facebook processes 500 Tb a day, now this is all manner of data, yet consider another indirect connection when we see ‘Tesco director facing questions about lobbying government over dirty chicken report‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/25/-sp-tesco-director-facing-questions-lobbying-government-dirty-chicken-report), the first paragraphs says it all (as far as information goes) “Former FSA chief Tim Smith understood to have warned Department of Health that revealing food poisoning contamination rates could provoke a food scare and damage the industry“, so when we add the text “Tim Smith is understood to have warned the Department of Health in June that FSA proposals for publishing results, which included naming and shaming individual supermarkets, could provoke a food scare and damage the industry“, so when was all this released to the media? how much delay was there? Consider the implication of the statement in there that “it kills around 100 people and makes an estimated 280,000 sick each year“, now we get back to the implied message that might have saved Lee Rigby, if we take that a message in total is no more than 60Kb (it is a lot smaller, but could include graphics), we are looking at 8 billion messages each day (those we make, we forward or share, those we get offered as advertisement). Now, there is more, Facebook has applications with within that application message options. Not one or two, but a few dozen, which means additional messages, like simple online messengers, all that data, now also consider the implied message that the Guardian mentioned. “The report said the authorities were never told that one of the killers, Michael Adebowale, wrote of his murderous intent six months before he and his accomplice, Michael Adebolajo, brutally attacked Rigby in May 2013 in a street near his military barracks and attempted to behead him“, so finding the message, investigating it and acting on it. In well over 2.5 billion optional threats, the National lottery in the UK has better odds of winning a big price in it, so how did all this come about?

Here we get to the issue “The ISC chair, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, accused internet companies of providing a “safe haven” to terrorists but said a despite a string of failings by the security services, which had repeatedly monitored both men before the attack, there was nothing they could have done to prevent the murder of Rigby“, here I start having an issue, particularly with Sir Malcolm. Consider one sincere threat in a place where there are millions of threats, boasts and pranks, all claiming something pretentiously grandiose. It is my believe that Sir Malcolm is all about trying something different and he going about it the wrong way, he is trying to get to Damascus, via Washington and Los Angeles. Not the brightest route to take. Apart from the approach he is implying to take, he is also forgetting about a series of events that he needs to take, which will fail and in the process will enable commercial companies to actually hammer down on consumers in the wrong way. Does Sir Malcolm realise that, or did he intentionally forget about that part?

What did I mean by that? You see, the intelligence branch has access to enhanced statistical algorithms; they match it via other created profiles. Now, normally such a profile is only created when a person has too many flags in his/her name. For example members of an extreme faction, people with links to organised crime and those with additional political agendas. There is a bunch of reasons which will result on the eye of the intelligence community on you. For the most they are checked every now and then and if nothing happens, nothing happens, it is that simple, which an accumulative approach to sifting data tends to be. This is all good and proper; it is a way to protect national interests. For the most they end up verifying that you are not a threat, or not a concern to them, it comes with their territory.

The intelligence branch has resources, they are there, but they are finite. Sir Malcolm seems to be pushing for a change that is extremely dangerous, you see, at some point, Facebook, Google and others will all be shanghaied into becoming ‘volunteers’ in data oversight. They will get all kinds of tax breaks, so there will be interesting benefits for these data farms, but now we get to the real dangers. At one point, they want more and push for a change that will allow these farms access to those advanced algorithms, now we get a new problem, now we see a change where those farms will get to analyse US ALL! they will have the algorithms and the linked data no commercial enterprise should ever be allowed to have, now we will all be set into those who get access (viable as retail commodity) and those who do not matter, we will get marketed into oblivion, but now directly into the realms we use to love, it will be a push to sway us into a direction we never wanted to go, our freedom becomes a point of pressure. Consider, you might love ‘the Office’, once social media digs deep, how much will you enjoy getting 10-20 sales pitches a day on your personal interests? How long until you stop sharing interests?

Now consider the following:

The ISC said in its report: “Whilst we note that progress has started to be made on this issue, with the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (Drip) and the appointment of the special envoy on intelligence and law-enforcement data-sharing, the problem is acute. The prime minister, with the National Security Council, should prioritise this issue”.

The part not mentioned or looked at is data retention. I wrote about it on October 2^nd 2014 in ‘Advice from the press?‘ there I wrote “I am still convinced that if data retention becomes a larger issue, the intelligence community will be lacking in hardware, knowledge and staff to deal with these massive amounts of data, which leaves us open to other issues, yet this is just my view!“, now we see a push that social media will do more scanning.

The next two paragraphs illustrate certain dangers down the track: “Adebolajo, the more dominant of the two, had featured in five MI5 investigations and Adebowale in two, but none found evidence of an attack. The ISC said MI5 made errors and was plagued by delays, but even if corrected none of this would have helped the security service to spot the level of danger posed by the attackers before they struck“, so how could we have kept Lee Rigby alive? The information to the better extent is stating that this would not have been the case and I am not the only one thinking this.

When we consider “The Guardian understands senior figures in MI6 expressed anger at the criticisms in the report. One source familiar with the committee’s work said: “It is fair to say that the chaps across the river are not happy at all.”“, we see another part. This is not just within the UK, the UK needs to protect itself, especially with the ISIS acceleration we see all over North Africa and in the Middle-East; this all requires a new strategy. Data is at the centre of it, that part is correctly seen by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of the ISC. Yet, my issue is the view the man seems to have in regards to integrity. Commercial enterprises have no integrity and to a larger extent, neither do internet providers. So we have an upcoming issue. The next part you the reader might observe is the part that was not clearly seen in the article and it has been part of the events that miss one item as we see these discussions.

What time is it?

Yes, the timeline! That is part of all this. No matter how lovely that ‘donut’ looks in London, the people there have been delaying with an increased amount of data. I personally would consider it to be in excess of 30% in growth per year, which means that the data collectors and analytical group grows over 100% in size in a little over 3 years, the accumulated requirement for the UK, and beyond that the Commonwealth requires growth beyond that. In my view, letting places like Facebook crunch that data and giving them access to some of these algorithms is clearly a bad idea. In addition, consider that these firms could harbour ‘sympathisers’ to chaos. Once these algorithms gets into other hands, how long until those supporting ISIS and like-minded extremists will get a handle on lowering their profile even further, making this entire approach pointless?

That danger is twofold, storage, which is the non-essential part. As storage seems to become cheaper and cheaper, that part will be decently manageable overall, the other part is the issue, processing power. We can want for all the processors we can, but the power processors of tomorrow are less and less equipped to deal with such a growing load of data. Now consider that this is just Facebook, how much additional data will we need to see mail providers, twitter, Instagram and loads of other multi Gigabyte collecting options. There is no denying that data needs to be looked at, yet direct data crunching is less and less an option. The question becomes how to tackle it, can or even the question should it be tackled like this at all?

That is the dangerous side, isn’t it? When we are confronted with such an abundance of data, why seek the pressured solution? Let’s not forget that the example taken here, namely Lee Rigby, would not have been saved. So why try to seek a solution in such a pressured environment? Consider the lottery example; if 1,000 out of the 5 billion are death threats, we get a number one in 5 million, now we need to tackle these 1000 messages, which ones are genuine? Consider that some are below the radar, which means that some could be WRONGLY disregarded. Add to that the danger of a prank jest where a group and all THEIR friends send one threat regarding a VIP, politician or regent. It would drown out intelligence resources in mere minutes.

So yes, no one denies that something must be done, yet giving social media these responsibilities is not the best idea, giving them access in some way to other algorithms is less a solution, we are in a shift of dimensions, an interaction of data dimensions and profiling intelligence. Consider the NSA data center in Utah, costing over 5 billion in total, in addition, the cost of electricity, manpower and other costs, taking it to an additional 50 million a year (for just one location). Now consider that this centre will need to grow processing power in excess of 50% within two years, how much additional costs will it require? Add to this the energy needs, well over 60 Megawatts, yet within 2 years, that could be closer to 80 megawatts. That means in excess of 10 wind turbines, just for one location, the equivalent of 15,000 households of energy. I think that certain parties are not thinking in the right location, if we disregard the lack of expertise and an offer (in abundance) of revenue based (read commission seeking) expertise, it seems to me that even though data should never be ignored, certain approaches will require a different hand.

Perhaps it is not a new solution they need, but to reinstate a very old one.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as CNET, data centre, Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, Facebook, Fusilier Lee Rigby, GCHQ, Intelligence, ISC, ISIS, Lee Rigby, Malcolm Rifkind, MI5, MI6, Michael Adebolajo, Michael Adebowale, NSA, Sir Malcolm, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Guardian, the intelligence branch, Utah, Washington

November 26, 2014 · 20:20

Below the skin of life

Like many others, I looked at what is going on in Ferguson Missouri and I wonder how things went so out of control. As per today, as I saw events erupt, I decided to take a little look at why this was happening. Not the fact of the boy who was shot, but what brought all this about. Doesn’t it seem strange that the events as they are evolving, that there is little to no mention at all in the press on this?

So what got all this started?

Well there is more than one story. First the one in USA Today (at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/)

12:01 p.m. – The officer encounters Michael Brown and a friend as they walk down a street. Brown is shot to death as a result of the encounter.

This is not much, is it?

We get a lot more from the NY Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html) Here we see: “At 12:01 p.m., they were stopped by Darren Wilson, a police officer, who ordered them off the road and onto the sidewalk, Mr Johnson, who is 22, later said“.

So this is because two kids were walking on the road and they were told to get on the sidewalk?

I am certain that the press is not hammering on this fact, but it seems to me that this escalation is purely due to events that go way beyond the mere shooting of a teenager named Michael Brown.

The wiki page (not too reliable a source) is slightly more informative, which seemed to be a combination of three papers. There we find: “Michael Brown, an 18-year-old male, died after being shot at least six times by Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old Ferguson Police Department officer. Brown was walking in the middle of the street along with his friend Dorian Johnson when Wilson stopped them and told them to use the sidewalk. From there, a conflict between the two erupted at the vehicle, as Brown allegedly assaulted the officer through his window. The officer allegedly reached for his weapon inside his vehicle shooting Brown in the thumb then shooting when Brown allegedly charged the officer, ending with Brown’s death from multiple gunshot wounds“.

So from this part we see a policeman alleged to be under attack. I use alleged as there is conflicting evidence on this. As you read the NY Times article, which is a very good and informative read, we also see a first inkling on how much limelight attention this is drawing.

The article also has a statement that is part of the problem “Thousands of protesters demanding information and justice for what was widely viewed as a reckless shooting took to the streets here in rallies that ranged from peaceful to violent“, this reads in two ways. The first is that if the entire part of moving to the sidewalk is true, then not only did Michael Brown bring this on himself (based on the evidence), but consider this, a cop tells you to get off the road and walk on the footpath, you do this, matter closed, no deaths, no shootings and no city on fire.

Is this oversimplifying the matter?

The second part is that if we alter the previous statement a little (for illustration) “Thousands of protesters demanding information and justice for what was widely viewed as a reckless shooting took to the streets here, rallying violently“, this is not done for correctness, this is done to illustrate one particular group that has been there all along. If you doubt me, then look at the photos of Ferguson in flames. This also leaves a clear indication that there is a lot more at play then we are seeing.

What we see here does not even come close to the London Looting scene from August 6^th until August 11^th 2011.

There is however a lot more, certain events are escalated in view by possible the press and possibly several political players. Can someone explain to me how it comes that the Brown family, they are, as we can all agree under a sad situation allowed to address a UN conference in Geneva on torture? This is seen in ‘Brown family returns to Ferguson from UN conference in Geneva‘ (at http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/brown-family-returns-ferguson-un-conference-geneva). If we look at Amnesty International (at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT40/001/2003), we see a document where on page 36, at 2.4 we see “The CRIPA provided the federal government with an important civil remedy, enabling the US (federal) Department of Justice to seek federal court orders or injunctions to eliminate patterns of abuse or unconstitutional conditions in state and local institutions“. This in itself is not an answer, what is shown that there are issues in play, there are remedies and legal avenues, so why were the Browns in Geneva? Was this a political play and a waste of time? Yes, I state a waste of time, because there are many issues in the world, many nations where torture is a real issue, where in many nations domestic violence against women (which I personally see as torture), is still at the foundation of society ignoring it all the way up to the top of national legislation. This includes Australia, the United Kingdom and several EEC nations as well.

It sounds extremely harsh to say it, but the shooting of an African American walking on the road does not cut it for the UN on torture (but it should be investigated).

It should be investigated, for the reason that we see the statement by Dr Baden in the NY Times to be “The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body”

Yet, NBC (at http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/vonderrit-myers-case-cops-say-shot-teen-had-gunshot-residue-n225761) states: “The St. Louis teenager fatally shot by an off-duty officer, which set off fresh protests in an already tense atmosphere, had gunshot residue on his hand and the waistband of his jeans, according to lab results released Tuesday by the police department“.

So there is a conflict of data already, according to the NY Times: “Dr Baden, 80 80, is a well-known New York-based medical examiner, who is one of only about 400 board-certified forensic pathologists in the nation. He reviewed the autopsies of both President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr Martin Luther King Jr., and has performed more than 20,000 autopsies himself“. It seems that this person is top notch in his field, which gives ample questions on where the NBC information comes from.

The entire issue that the police officer was attacked in his car! If we go back to USA Today, we see as the timeline for August 10th at 10:00 “10 a.m. – Michael Brown, 18, was unarmed, St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar says in a news conference. Belmar says Brown physically assaulted the officer, and during a struggle between the two, Brown reached for the officer’s gun. One shot was fired in the car followed by other gunshots outside of the car“.

We now have an issue, there is conflicting evidence and the gunshot residue is part of the smoking gun (it really is). So, what happened?

There is an issue on several levels and no matter how the Grand Jury goes; there are massive issues, because the death of one teen (in a nation with well over 17,000 homicides in 16 states) does not seem like a big number (statistically speaking). Linked to this is one more part that we saw in the NY Times “According to what has emerged so far, on Saturday, Aug. 9, Mr Brown, along with a companion, Dorian Johnson, was walking in the middle of Canfield Drive, a fistful of cigarillos in Mr Brown’s hand, police say, which a videotape shows he stole from a liquor store on West Florissant Ave.“, so we see a possible result of a crime, which can only come to light after the facts, we see a shooting with conflicting data.

There is a lot going on in Ferguson, Missouri, yet the press are all focussing on the fires, I have seen little to nothing in regards to how these fires got started in the first place. Is this the direct consequence of a collapsed economy, a collapsed morale anticipating no future? If so, then Ferguson is only the tip of the iceberg and we will see a lot more escalations, likely far beyond the state borders of Missouri.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Amnesty International, Australia, Daren Wilson, Darren Wilson, Dr Baden, EEC, Ferguson, Ferguson Police Department, Geneva, London Looting, Martin Luther King, Michael Brown, Missouri, MSNBC, NY Times, Police Chief Joe Belmar, President John F. Kennedy, St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar, UK, UN conference, USA today

November 24, 2014 · 11:20

The reality for poor London

It is not a new concept, people who are getting drowned through greed, yet as the Guardian in a video shows us: (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2014/nov/21/new-era-residents-fight-us-owners-westbrook-london-estate-video), the dangers where greed will not turn people homeless. In addition, the people behind it, Westbrook partners are hiding behind walls and the law. Here is the first part I object to. The law is a shield of protection for victims, not a cloak of unaccountability for the greed driven. However, part of the article that is not shown is the fact that the UK government might have fumbled the ball in a massive way here. I reckon that David Cameron has to attack these issues immediately, because if left untouched, the move from all parties INTO UKIP might be one we have never ever seen before in the history of politics.

So what is actually the case?

Westbrook Partners has been buying real estate on a massive scale; London, New York and Tokyo have been met with a spending spree on acquiring real estate. Buildings have changed ownership, but this change has a difference. This is done for investors of American workers Pension funds (to name but one). They bought property as mentioned in Hackney (inner east London), the residents were told that the rents will now go to market value, this is stated to mean that rents will triple almost overnight, how is that even close to acceptable, moreover, how many will be left to afford such a rent? Consider a rent of 2,500 pounds a month, this comes down to $4,500, I have had decently good paid jobs in IT, but I cannot afford those levels of rent, not in the best of days. Hackney council is currently expecting Westbrook to issue eviction notices. This is worse than just a bad nightmare; dozens of homes will be uprooted for what? Replacement by high rise new building, offering a massive boost to Westbrook Partners, which by the way is a US firm with offices in the UK.

It is not just the immorality of it all, consider that investment firms are now focussing on lower yield options, lower yield locations. Is this because the American wells have dried up? Now, I know that for the most, these things are not an option (or were not an option) in Amsterdam. When Amsterdam saw the 70’s boom in London, they made sure that these dangerous times could not happen there, but it is not a given for all buildings in Amsterdam (outside of the inner city). Consider other places where governments have been lacks with affordable housing. With this I mean Melbourne, Sydney AND Brisbane in Australia, Rotterdam, Delft and Leiden in the Netherlands, Several places in Germany and a few other places. When Westbrook and companies like them start changing the game to this extent, what will happen to the population at large? San Francisco had some events in this direction as Google expanded its views, but this is only the tip of the iceberg, now it is not just housing for a large company, now it is about returns for investors, how long until that part collapses leaving people not just in a state of destitution, but homeless as well?

When we see the article, we see the American Workers Pension Funds, with an image of fire fighters, did these fire fighters know that they are not just saving people, but for their retirement, they are making them homeless too? So is there an issue? Well, Yes!

The issue is at present that what is being done in not illegal, but highly immoral. To force a population out of an area, because of income is like stating that the poor are not allowed in London in any way, how is that not discrimination?

More interesting is how Westbrook was unreachable by the Guardian, their website views like a two page joke giving no information at all. When has an investment firm hiding behind wall of unreachability ever been a good thing? Goldman Sachs has been bad news on a global scale, yet they at least remained reachable. This new era of Westbrook is something entirely different. To see just how dangerous this rent rise is, take a look at the image on this link http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/19/new-era-estate-scandal-london-families-international-speculators, even more interesting is how the New Era estates included a minority share by Conservative MP Richard Benyon, who is pulling out this month, when confronted with these levels of changes. We might think of blaming it all on London’s Westbrook Principle Mark Donnor, but is that fair? Consider that this mess is the continuation of a mess which I witnessed for well over 22 years! Prices in London have always been outrageous and now that the wells are drying up, rental spaces are one of the few low return yielding options. Both political parties should have harshly intervened long before 1995, but they decided not to, now we see a new iteration which could break the London infrastructure. If you wonder why, then let me explain.

London needs workers, they always needed them and most of them live a long way from London, yet now we see a new group, those on a ‘higher’ lower income like Nurses and some tradies who lived in places like Hackney, as they are evicted, they will move further away and they will try to seek work in a place that is not London, as London faces a rental crash, it will also face a workers crash as people are less willing to live 2-3 hours away from work, we see the need to find other avenues to contain their work-life balance, that means working somewhere else. You might think that this is exaggeration in regards to 92 households in Hackney, but do you think it ends here?

If we consider the quote “The letter said they had secured an agreement not to increase rents again until 2016. However, it added: “Since this week’s departure of the Benyon Estate we understand the council have now been informed that Westbrook no longer plan to honour that plan, and have been told that their plan is to refurbish the current estate in its entirety and then rent all the properties without secure tenancies at market rent levels, with no affordable housing”“, we get another view, we get the view of several investment firms seeing what could be acquired in London for refurbishment and upgrades to market value housing. Consider areas like Paddington and Kilburn, what happens when they get refurbished into market value? In addition, when we see “Councils are acquiring properties in Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Sussex and further afield to cope with an expected surge in numbers of vulnerable families presenting as homeless as a result of welfare cuts from next April” (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/04/london-boroughs-housing-families-outside-capital), is this perhaps just the beginning? What happens when the situation goes from 92 households, to 992 households? What will happen to the smaller businesses as these places are all upgraded? The London economy is an interaction of classes and groups, when the city changes the dynamic that has worked for decades, we see a change in culture and options for all workers involved, moreover, what can we expect to see when these locations start to lose the reliability it has had for so long towards an entire iteration of workers and traders. Once that is changed, other elements will become in play as well, then what will happen?

In my view, David Cameron will need to make large strides in changing a current approach, to allow for long term sustainability. If not, we will see entire areas no longer in a state of survivability. These events that Westbrook has started will also make a change to the policies that London Lord-Mayor Boris Johnson is trying to introduce. No matter how strong the need for a living wage is, as Westbrook is pushing for market values, we will see a living wage that needs to go from £8.55 to £18.55, which is something that is not just unrealistic, it will be totally unmaintainable. The fallout will be long term.

In the end the UK government did this by not acting and others might be in the same predicament soon enough. I will be honest and state right here that no one anticipated the fact that rent would ever become the preferred return on investment for investment companies, which is an entirely different conversation I will have with my readers at a later stage. A change none saw coming, but now that it is here, it will prove to be additional hardship on the Conservative party, whilst giving even more options to UKIP.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as Australia, Berkshire, Boris Johnson, Conservative MP Richard Benyon, David Cameron, Delft, Essex, Goldman Sachs, Hackney, Hertfordshire, Kent, London, London's Westbrook Principle Mark Donnor, Mark Donnor, Melbourne, Netherlands, Nigel Farage, Richard Benyon, Rotterdam, San Francisco, Sussex, Sydney, UKIP, Westbrook Investment, Westbrook partners

November 22, 2014 · 11:51

A beefy certification!

There was an unsettling report on the news at 06:30 this morning. It showed issues with Halal classification with references to terrorism. Oh, the man was very ‘precise’ in stating there were at present no indications, it was all about clarity. So before we take a look at this, let’s take a look at George Christensen, a Liberal who seems to represent the people from MacKay going north, his area stops before Townsville, which beckons the question how many Muslims are there in his constituency? Did he meet with them, or with a Muslim spokesperson to discuss this BEFORE this was given to the press for HIS visibility? (Ne thinks not, but I could be wrong).

This part was the part I had an issue with: “I have never said there is any evidence of links between halal certification and terrorism in Australia. Consumers should be able to know where proceeds derived from all forms of certification go, including kosher certification. There is a clear reason why many Australian’s are talking about halal certification and not kosher certification. There hasn’t been any terror plots found in Australia nor have there been any terror attacks killing Australian’s in Bali or New York City or elsewhere that were masterminded by Jews or even extreme sects within Judaism”

The first question in my mind is why? If I do not live for Halal foods, why have the interest on how certification is set and where proceeds go to? In my mind I am at times curious how Halal and Kosher certification is done, but that is for a mere academic curiosity. I would think that George Christensen should look into other meaty issues. Perhaps some will remember the scandal that had hit the UK a little over a year ago, on how 29% of beef had added horse to it. So George, how much Phar-Lap can we find in a Queensland hamburger? Have you looked into that part at present? You know, whilst having your Vegemite sandwich, as you come from the land down under!

You see, when we see news like ‘Campaign to boycott halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification‘ (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-20/campaign-to-boycott-halal-food-gains-momentum-in-australia/5907844), I wonder what is driving this. It is as I see it a deceitful approach to anti-Muslim sentiment. Australia is not and should never be anti-Muslim. Like the UK we are anti-Extremism and as such we keep our watchful eyes open, but to attack Muslims all over by becoming anti-Halal is like Idi Amin walking up to Mahatma Ghandi stating ‘Dude, you are too intense!‘.

Consider the quote regarding the anti-Halal movement “Its carefully anonymous leaders keep a low profile, directing their members to swarm target companies’ online profiles and boycott their products“, this reads like a page of the manifesto of white supreme-cysts letting the dumb masses do their dirty work. It is not unlike some early KKK approaches into changing commercial interests to fit personal needs.

When we consider the quote “I think it’s fair to say that people from all walks of life, should be able to ask are you halal certified? It’s not a hard question“, we need to ask another hard question. Why? You see, Halal is an issue for Muslims and Muslims alone. As far as I always have known it to be: ‘the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck, causing the animal’s death without cutting the spinal cord. Lastly, the blood from the veins must be drained, it is done according to religious standards’ (I got this part from Wiki, because I was lazy formulating my view on this). In the back of your mind, these animals are slaughtered in a humane way (it sounds strange, I know), so this meat is prepared in a certain way, so that it is the finest beef, now consider the slaughterhouses Christians use (in mass quantities), one could consider that Kosher (Jewish), Halal (Muslim and Jhatka (Sikh) will always have the best meat. When we see in definitions ‘killing the animal whilst causing it minimal suffering‘, gives thought to a humane approach on preparing food, I can guaranty you that when you see modern slaughterhouses, ‘humane’ is a word we need to leave behind before we get within a mile of many slaughterhouses (isn’t there at least one in Christensen’s district?) I wonder if George Christensen ever took time to properly investigate matters before he started, you know, opening his mouth.

There is one additional part that should be looked at, which is that the killing of animals, in Islam is set in two categories: 1, for food and 2, to eliminate danger (like rabid animals). In response to this anti-Halal I would like to add the quote in the second article: “‘If they don’t change their ways and start acting as patriotic Australians, they deserve what they get. Its market forces,’ he said“. Is that so? In that case, I reckon their next change is to shut down EVERY Target and K-Mart, which should be closed until all the cheap $3 articles from Myanmar and Sri-Lanka have been removed and replaced by articles made in Australia. You see, when your members see the quality of life decrease as expenses go up from +50% to +150%, they will likely move away from sanctimonious statements regarding ‘patriotic‘. It seems to me that Certifications like Kosher, Halal and Jhatka do have a religious ground, yet behind that is a hidden quality because of these practices, making these certifications interesting to consumers all over the religious spectrum. In the end, we the people want good food, good quality items.

So when I see opportunists talk about ‘patriotic’, then I wonder if they are aware of ‘Value of ‘more sophisticated’ counterfeit goods increases by millions‘ (at http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/value-of-more-sophisticated-counterfeit-goods-increases-by-millions-20140426-zqzu8.html), where we see the two quotes “Among the 2012-13 seizures were 43,200 bottles of beer in Western Australia in March 2013” and “Up to 86 per cent of all goods are manufactured in China, he said“, so Mr Sanctimonious, when did you last buy your Australian beer on special? How Australian was it, or perhaps you could not tell the difference?

It seems to me that local certification is preventing counterfeit and forged processed foods just fine, by not letting this happen. A local market like that cannot cheat when there is a clear view of where things came from, from Cow and Lamb to final piece of red meat. Something the ‘mass-market’ seems to be completely unaware of, that part was shown a year ago when most European nations enjoyed Phar-Lap sprinkled burgers and sausages.

So back to George Christensen, why is he on this horse-meat to begin with? When I see the following in the ABC article referred to earlier “The trouble began for the Fleurieu Milk and Yoghurt Company last month when Mr Hutchinson received an email asking to confirm whether his company had halal certification. Six months earlier, the company had gained halal certification as a requirement to supply a $50,000 yoghurt contract with Emirates Airlines. ‘It was a $1,000 fee. It opened up a business market to continue to become viable. It was a necessary step,’ Mr Hutchinson said“, here we see a simple certification step, which brings a $1000 fee, but opens up a $50,000 market for an Australian company. I think that Fleurieu is doing a good thing here, they went to adhering to a market, which requires certain high standards, they met the challenge and they are in business, in this regard how UN-Australian are the people attacking this? Is this about where the $1000 went to, as George Christensen seems to question? If that is true, then I wonder what George Christensen is up to wasting our precious time on this issue (I do not care if he wastes his time on this, but his constituents might ask). What was this really about? If my ‘response’ would be a personal one, I might ask why this ‘entertainer’ (can we call George Christensen a politician when we read these facts?) is a Liberal member, he sounds like Labour party material at present. Yet when we see the mention “George Christensen wants halal certifiers to open up their books“, I wonder what he is really trying to get at, the people who paid for certification, or the list of certifying instances. When we see the $1000 fee, to make any serious contribution one would need many thousands of companies getting certified, I think that this is about something else entirely. That view became visible as I found a blog regarding Carol Vernon, running for the Greens in September 2014 (at http://mncgreens.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/george-christensens-statement-labelling.html), the quote is “Mr Christensen is referring to people who oppose the industrialisation of the Great Barrier Reef as terrorists and in the current climate that is utterly unacceptable, wrong and incredibly dangerous and irresponsible“, yet in August we see his statement that his approach was wrong (self-admitted by GC, at http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/great-barrier-reef-federal-mp-george-christensen-says-i-got-it-wrong/story-e6frflp0-1227040230696), so what is this about? When we consider the site ‘they vote for you’ we see that George Christensen is labelled as ‘George Christensen voted very strongly against increasing marine conservation‘, this makes sense when we see his view on the Great Barrier Reef and on other matters. It seems to me that he is firmly in the pocket of ‘big business’, you see, as I personally view it, Halal, Kosher and Jhatka is all about quality oversight, something big business abhors. they want freedom of unaccounted actions (like the Phar-Lap burger), so, when we see businesses making changes that could be regarded as morally correct activities like Halal certification, we see that it is not about the dollars, but about the quality, an approach the connections of Christensen might not like as it undermines their profitability as they are stopped from dredge dumping and so on, Dawson has abattoirs and mining items in their constituency, which beckons other questions too. As a population wants a better quality, we see a better community, seems to me that Halal certification might be a threat to these abattoirs, for who do (or did) they cater to?

An electorate with 92,000 votes (at 94% turnout), is not that sizeable a community. So why was George Christensen bothering with all this?

Consider the quote “there has been some evidence in other countries that there has been dubious activities on halal certification“, so where is that evidence? George Christensen is outraged that his grocery spending could be propagating a religion, in regards to Vegemite (as stated by ABC news), we should consider the following: There are 22 million jars produced every year. Halal certification is $1000, according to one source stated earlier, which means $0.00454 per jar, which is less than half a cent, so when we consider this in regards to George Christensen, should he be regarded anything less than a joke? There was never a security issue, as I see it, there was never any issue on religious certification, it was as I see it a waste of time from beginning to end, perhaps to avert talk from his disastrous approach to the Great Barrier Reef. Which is of course a second joke (a story lacking humour in this case) when we see Julie Bishop state that there was no threat in response to the quote by President Obama “Mr Obama told the audience the ‘incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened’ because of global warming and said he wanted to be able to return to Australia with his daughters when he had more time“, that statement that there is no threat, is of course debatable as George Christensen was extremely willing to use it as a dumping ground for dredging activities, which we see at “In January 2014, a proposal for Abbot Point was approved to dispose of 1.3 million cubic metres of dredge spoil“, so how will that ensure a long lasting reef? If we are to accept the report (at http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/17164/ShenNengGroundingImpactAssessmentReport.pdf), we see “contamination by TBT such as from anti-fouling paints is likely to have a significant and persistent ecological impact on biota at a ship grounding site and potentially the surrounding physically non-impacted areas“, which is just one quote from the 160 page document. As we saw that the captain was given a $25,000 fine, how large was the total fine for this one event, and how much will it take to fix the reef? In light of the fragility of the coral reef, how could any positive light ‘be given’ towards dumping sludge on ecology this fragile?

It seems to me that in regards to the reef, both sides have been playing it fast and loose towards the health of the Great Barrier Reef, when we see that 85% of Australia is all for a healthy GBR, we can only wonder why George Christensen is all about certification of red meat and not that much for a great reef.

Did I oversimplify matters again? Silly me!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as Abbot Point, ABC, Dawson electorate, Emirates Airlines, Fleurieu, Fleurieu Milk and Yoghurt Company, George Christensen, Great Barrier Reef, Halal, Jahkta, Julie Bishop, K-Mart, KKK, Kosher, MacKay, Mr Hutchinson, Myanmar, Phar Lap, President Obama, SMH, Sri-Lanka, Sydney Morning Herald, Target, Vegemite, www.gbrmpa.gov.au

November 20, 2014 · 21:40

Classifying defection

This is at the centre of my dilemma today. Part of me knows that some of my exam results have been posted. I have two more exams, which makes me too scared to check them. If I fail, my life will feel it is over and I feel like admiring the great view a person has when he leaps down the Empire State Building, some say that this view is the best and it is apparently a one-time option. Anyway, if I fail, I will get more depressed then I already am, If I pass I might relax a little too much whilst I have two exams between now and coming Tuesday morning, hence the fear to check.

On my 2 hour point of rest, I got my hands on this article ‘Rochester by-election: “two more Tories ready to defect”‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/rochester-strood-byelection-voters-polls-ukip), for most of my life I have seen defection for the most as an act of treason, we take a team and we stick by that team (or company), I have watched scores of ‘managers’ ‘defect’ to the status or situation that benefited them the most, which I considered betraying the company that hired THEM to do a job. The then hid behind words like ‘miscommunication’ and ‘what was the best option’ the added part ‘for themselves’ was a bit of an issue to me. Corporations take this as the cost of doing business, but is that the acceptable truth of the matter? I actually do not know.

So these thoughts were in my mind as I read the article. You see, the question becomes who does an MP owes allegiance to? The party he is in or the people who elected him? That part is now unclear. Are these two MP’s Tories who serve Rochester and Strood, or are they Rochester and Strood MP’s who serve the conservatives? That is the question that phrases my mind. Yet when we look into the article another option is started to form. When we see the following parts: “My view is that Ukip membership should come back and join the Conservatives and be part of a centre-right majority in this country” and “Tolhurst said she was still hopeful of winning, but was reduced to begging for votes from supporters of other parties in an attempt to keep Ukip out of the constituency“, so what are we dealing with? Is this a situation where two MP’s are actually trying to sway both sides to stay in a seat, no matter whom they serve, are they playing both sides against the middle or are we looking at another play, one of voter management into getting the waters slowly managed by surfing the questions of the voters and through surfing these waves, to guide themselves into the opportunity to make the waves alter slightly, little by little into a new direction.

It is consistently illogical to expect the waves to react to the surfer, but is that entirely true? As the surfer becomes part of a wave, does that surfer not influence that what he is part of, or does the surfer just glide the wave, enjoying the motion but never to interact the wave so that the surfer will not get crushed by the wave as it engulfs him? What is true, by which definition and to what extent?

So why is this small part of Kent so distinct? I do not think it is distinct, I think that there is a play in motion, but to what extent is not clear. Consider the entire change as UKIP is growing beyond what most parties considered possible. Tories are scattered, Prime Minister David Cameron is all over the place to get a hold of the change, but the issue is not conservative based or Cameron based, it is in my mind constituency based. What is planned for the 75,000 voters and how should they be regarded as? In that area Mark Reckless does have a massive advantage, so why is there an issue with UKIP? The question becomes, what will happen, will the 23,000 people support conservatives and all move towards Kelly Tolhurst, or are we witnessing the sentiment within a constituency as they align and identify with the values that UKIP is advocating? If that is happening, are the conservatives on the right path, or are they ignoring the drastic need to educate the people towards why UKIP is the bad choice. Let us not forget that the conservatives got the economy started to the smallest extent whilst the EU is bleeding recession all over. The cautious approach by George Osborne is what is moving England towards better economic waters, which is also why the influx of immigrants is taking massive shapes, all towards better times. It seems to me that UKIP talks nice, but they have at present no way to continue the positive waves, in addition, the needs of change they will force upon the system could undo the forward strides the conservatives achieved within the first 6 months Nigel Farage starts implementing change, which he will believe to be ‘for the better’. The greatest danger here is that the results are only known after the fact, then it will be too late, so there is the link to my own fear, knowing will have repercussions. Ignorance is bliss to some extent; it lets me focus on what needs to be done. I can do it to my issues, Mark Reckless can do it towards the change he believes will make the difference and Kelly Tolhurst will just focus on becoming the new conservative for Kent. Yet Parliament will not get to ignore anything, it needs to dynamically alter its strategies on changes as they happen. David Cameron needs to remain dynamically active, but what of Nigel Farage? Is he dynamically active as we see ‘Farage rejects deportation claims amid UKIP migrant row‘ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30111694), is he tactically changing points of view in regards to the battles he can win versus those that halt him (a dynamical act), or is he stating dynamical changes whilst not actually being dynamically active? As we see the quote in the BBC article “But Conservative MP Damian Green said Mr Reckless had come ‘dangerously close’ to advocating a repatriation policy while Labour’s Yvette Cooper said Mr Reckless had ‘let the mask slip’“. Is he truly slipping the mask, is he opportunistically inclined as the bulk of middle managers all over the place, or are we watching a different tactic, one that requires the voters top change course, just like the waves for a surfer, yet if waves cannot change direction, was the direction of the voters an actual direction which was never seen correctly?

This is part of my thinking, part that all parties seemed to have ignored, or at least it is a change that many did not consider. These matters are centre in the upcoming by-elections. The people have made mental changes to the parties and what they stand for. Instead of waiting election, Nigel Farage seems to be changing the landscape by these tactical changes, as areas move towards by-elections, we see a shift for the worst (if you are a conservative), so as the deck is stacked in favour of Farage Ukiporated, we see the approach where the 2015 elections are already being drawn vastly against the conservatives. Yes, 75,000 people in one part of Kent is not a big thing, but as this is only one constituency, which others are under attack? Let’s not forget that it is not just the conservatives that are under attack, the Liberal Democrats and Labour both have areas where the voters have been making changes, waves that are all taking other turns and directions, what will happen there? The UK, 650 surfers (read constituencies), and its politicians all trying to ride the waves, will they change boards or get crushed in the waves as they are not respecting the power of the wave. In my mind we will see plenty of surfers adapting to the waves, so will they therefor be the betrayers of the party that gave them the surfboard, are they respecting those who voted for them as they change the waves in a mindset of the price of doing business or are they doing nothing more than serve themselves as they surf for as long as they can. Who do they surf?

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as BBC, Conservatives, Damian Green, David Cameron, George Osborne, Kelly Tolhurst, Kent, Mark Reckless, Nigel Farage, Parliament, Prime Minister David Cameron, Rochester, Rochester and Strood, the Guardian, UKIP, Yvette Cooper

November 19, 2014 · 11:04

Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more

It is an old saying that still applies today. It reflects on two events, two that show that the events we see escalating have a profound impact on choices, those in the past and in the future. When we consider the events (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/synagogue-murders-binyamin-netanyahu-despicable-murderers) of slaughter, we see two sides of the same equation, on one side can we hold a group accountable for the action of a few people. Can Palestine be held accountable for the events of two Palestinians? The UN is so eager to add Palestine and give them loads of options, yet the massive amount of events going on form 1946 gives clear way that many have been on track and remain on track to eradicate the Jewish population. There is something entirely wrong about that, yet we must accept that Palestine has genuine grievances; however these are completely ignorable towards the fact that genocide should not be condoned, the Israeli state, which seemingly became the quick solution for governments after the WW2 massacre. As I personally see it, the powers that be who were in charge in 1945 required a solution for giving the Jewish population a solution and made their dream come true of the start of the state of Israel. Was this wrong? I am not wise enough to have the answer to this, yet what is a certainty is that, if it had not happened, Europe would have been confronted with a population bend on revenge after what was done to them. Consider the danger of death squads getting even with the Dutch, German and French population for what was done to them. Even if we consider legal events (at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/jewish-family-in-restitution-standoff-with-german-city-of-teltow-a-939659.html), ‘A German-American lawyer and his family have been fighting for over two decades to reclaim lucrative properties lost under the Nazi regime‘ is only one of millions. Consider when massive chunks of Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich, Koln, Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, Reims, and that list goes on. Creating the state of Israel was the easy way out. Even though Historically, that part would have been even larger than what it is now. Yet, the issue does not stop here.

When we look at the second news story we see that the US has been kind enough to leave some hardware for Isis (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/un-report-isis-enough-weapons-carry-on-fighting-two-years). The four bullet points are:

Arsenal is sufficient enough to threaten region ‘even without territory’
Much of Isis’s weapon stocks were stolen from US-backed Iraqi military
Report recommends sanctions including seizing Isis oil tanker trucks
Foreign jihadis flocking to Iraq and Syria on ‘unprecedented scale’

The first issue shows that ISIS has enough power to be a clear threat, this leaves the indication that the initial US strategy of bombing was never a true option. I never believed it to be and several deeper into military knowledge and strategy had the same idea on this. The term ‘no boots on the ground’ was not realistic from day one. To be honest, it would be realistic if other nations had stepped up to the plate for this, which would not be a unacceptable idea, as America is both financially and economically in a state slightly lower than the average basement. It is not unrealistic to let other nations step up to the plate, but that would leave it all in the hands of politicians, which gives the reader an idea of how much is unlikely to happen.

The second issue is twofold, either the Iraqi military is strategically inapt to deal with the situation, in the second it is not impossible that part of the Iraqi military is on the side of ISIS and they military is to some extent the eyes and ears of ISIS. The last part is clear speculation by me, but overall is that such a stretch? ISIS is making massive stride all over the middle east, there is additional clear indication that ISIS has reached Gaza and moreover, Hamas is losing more and more control of the west bank. These escalating issues are now becoming a worry on several fields. West Bank, Sinai and they are gaining visibility in Jordan.

The third issue is about recommendations. It sounds nice in theory, but what will be done when they only deal with Islamic partners like Pakistan, Morocco, Tunisia, Palestine, Senegal and others, how much confiscation will there be? More important, the recommendation ignores the biggest danger. What if ISIS locks down on the oil, they got by without it easy enough, but when the lock down starts, how long until most nations go into a lock down? Consider the barricading of oil transport to US and Europe for two weeks, how long until that powder keg paralyses nations and economies? Frank Herbert wrote it about it in his book Dune: ‘He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing‘, that is a truth we ignored. The tactic (seen as ‘scorched Earth‘) has been employed by Stalin during WW2, Sherman in the American civil war, Lord Kitchener in South Africa and by the Russians against Napoleon. The tactic was to some extent banned under Article 54 of Protocol I of the 1977 Geneva Conventions, which is only nice if ISIS would respect that, but we can definitely rule out that chance.

The fourth one is the nightmare many government face, not as they go there to fight, but what happens when these people return, which allows ISIS to place lone wolf terrorists, with massive amounts of options to damage the nations that gave them a life and future in the first place. Now we get to the title!

si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi

If you are elsewhere, live as them there (rough translation), yet the second part is not exactly happening, yes they start like that, then they take over and others convert or die. This is at the core of the issue, and as we speak, there is intelligence out there that is confirming (actually they are not denying, which is not the same) that ISIS is growing its numbers from the refugee camps, camps with over 2 million people. If only 1% joins, they will have enough troops to change the face of the Middle East.

We can debate on legitimacy of Iraq all we want, but in the end does it truly matter? The events that changed the map are now at the centre of the moments that shape the new Middle East. The question becomes who wins? It is clear that the winner will have a foundation of support all over the Middle East, yet where will that leave Israel and America? Soon they will be forced down a path of war that none considered to the extent that anyone envisioned. It will be the first war that might have the blessing of the Arabian states, as it seems decently clear that they have enough worry from ISIS as well. If ISIS grows beyond a certain point, we will see a change in Jordan and Syria first, after that the tinderbox will truly light up, with threats to Egypt and the nations surrounding the UAE and Saudi Arabia, then what will we do? Consider ISIS not just with troops and arms, but with access to the oil wells and they decide who gets delivery. Then we end up with the nightmare scenario, just because it was left to the politicians.

So as we now consider the fullness of the text: “si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi“, those in charge need to consider who they are dealing with and throw out the play book they used for too long a time without ANY results, consider who these Romans are and deal with them, because if we don’t they will hand out the dealings of portions of grief none will survive, which will be extremely uncomfortable for all of us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as 1977 Geneva Conventions, Al-Qaeda, American civil war, Der Spiegel, Egypt, Frank Herbert, Iraqi military, ISIS, Israel, Jewish population, Jordan, Lord Kitchener in South Africa, Middle East, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, scorched earth, Senegal, the Guardians, Tunisia, UAE

November 17, 2014 · 01:59

Rated into immorality

Can anyone explain something weird to me? The news is given (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/14/twitter-given-junk-credit-rating) to impress upon us a combination of values and steps that are beyond immoral. Consider the tweet, tweet twitter engine. I use it almost every day, it is the one unbiased part where we can follow events, people and companies so that we keep up to date, small messages that bring the actual information. A company that had a massive idea, is making money, when we see the quote “Jim Prosser, a spokesman for Twitter, pointed to S&P’s own words as comment: “Twitter will continue to experience very strong growth and not encounter a significant increase in competitive pressure.”“, we see issues, but is anyone seeing the question behind it? Then we see the one little gem hidden in all the text “The rating is unsolicited“, is this part of the issue? You see, as we look at companies, their revenue, their profit and some might consider their contribution, so as we look at it why is S&P suddenly decided ‘Twitter given junk credit rating‘? It seems to me that there is an economic shift going on. As companies are doing well, they are now getting downgraded for not meeting the expectations of some analysts.

Yet, where is this world going to?

Consider the application of morale (a word not found in a financiers dictionary) and reasoning for my thought train at present is the following: ‘Forex-rigging investigation: George Osborne gives full backing to SFO‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/14/forex-rigging-investigation-george-osborne-sfo). Libor, Forex, Tesco and there is absolutely ZERO indication that this is just it. At the edge of reason we see the quote ‘Because I don’t want you to see any of my wobbly bits‘, which sounds ample and applicable as the financial district of happily ‘screw everyone over‘, it is all about the wobbly bits, according to Bridget Jones!

Consider the Forex articles. The second one is http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/14/us-banks-forex-crime-idUSKCN0IY0LV20141114. The issue is not just the events, the quote “Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp and UBS were hit with penalties. Barclays is still in talks with authorities over a settlement“, which not just how far the issue has overstepped, but the issue is where banking laws are falling short, short to the extent that we have in access of half a decade. The issues continued after the banking collapse as the financial population continued to be nothing more than an eager courtesan to the bonus they so crave. The end result is a malignant decay of morals, standards and all this now (as I personally see it) on the standards as the poor are left with less than none, so Standards & Poor it is!

We now get back to what I regard to be a new level of exploited levelling. Consider the hidden simplicity that Libor held; now consider that debt ratings Moody’s, S&P, Fitch and the relative newbie Egan-Jones decide on ratings. Combine ‘how to lie with statistics‘ (a famous book by Darrell Huff) and the need to manipulate the market for 23 billionaires and we see the light of junk status made Twitter in a whole new light. Consider the basic state of an economy. A company sells, makes profit and pays taxes, a nation flourishes! This is a naive (remember my non-economic degree?) approach towards the worlds cloud of business. Investors, shareholders, analysts and raters are a cog within a machine of cogs. Yet this inner circular machine is different. It inflates, malleably changes and coaches towards a change that seems to be intent on syphoning and draining virtual cash flows into a different premise of profit, which is then turned to actual money. In an age of debts that go beyond the total of all treasuries, virtual numbers that have little to no foundation. The foundations and the levels they have been compromised towards are of a dimension we never imagined possible. Consider that the big banks have been fined in excess of 2.3 billion (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/12/04/big-banks-fined-2-3b-over-illegal-libor-cartels-more-fines-on-the-way/), I wrote about it in ‘60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!‘, on April 1^st 2013, yet do not think this article to be a joke. I stated “If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and US combined) then that difference would be $112T“, several people laughed out loud then, yet now consider not just Libor, but the audited events of Tesco, the $5.3 trillion market of Forex and the fact that morality might be found in a church, but as we see the evidence, morality is not found in banks and financial institutions, where will it end?

With the Twitter events that question becomes more debatable and the impact that rating companies now impress upon profit turning companies have. Is it just about profit, or about the stated ‘anticipated statement of profit’? As certain ‘analysts’ claim that events are not exceeded, stock becomes junk, waves are created and as such, the welfare of companies are tweaked into a state of artificially changed state, some are inflated, some deflated, but always towards the claim of raters and analysts. The bottom line set towards an algorithm. Consider these states as we have seen not just the change of Tesco, but the events as they also gave way of downgraded profits with Sainsbury, which was not so vocally seen before that day in September. Interactions on many levels, based upon foundations that no one seems to question. Consider how the expectations were set by ‘analysts’ based upon data given to them and data available to them, now consider how Tesco had a quarter of a billion inflated and how the Pricewaterhouse Cooper auditors were ignorant of the inflated condition, now consider how Analysts used that element in predicting waves, the raters predicted and set the value and they are now setting the anticipation of investors and shareholders, an artificial pool with tidal wave creating capacity, and the two elements that have the ability to set the power and size of the waves. So how is your view of financial morality now? Consider the final part in this story. When we consider a story on Fortune titled ‘Twitter is junk, while Alibaba is class, ratings agencies say‘ (at http://fortune.com/2014/11/14/twitter-is-junk-while-alibaba-is-class-ratings-agencies-say/), why is that? Twitter is still holding its own, is it perhaps that the waves of Alibaba can be more easily influenced? Companies valued at the ability where the waves can be decided by the financial cogs, the stability of Twitter is less interesting to them, so they make way for whoever can aid in creating the waves these financial people want. (The last part you read is all speculation on my side), yet speculation or not, when we see the waves of Libor and Forex, are my thoughts so far out of bounds? How Twitter making millions is downgraded, how Tesco, beyond the inflated profits, still made a billion, it’s downgrade of 90% seems excessive beyond punishment, but Tesco is not a good example (because of their own internal manipulation), Consider the Fortune quote “And the fact that Alibaba is 90% dependent on a home market that is slowing, while acknowledged as a risk, doesn’t seem to scare the agencies“, it does not scare them, or it appeals the dependency of Alibaba to make certain decisions down the line? There is a side that seems ignored by all, I personally still have a hard time believing that (as my calculation went in ‘Price Waterfall Blooper‘ on October 25^th) the price for 199 auditors could not find two events of inflation of each well over 100 million. Are my suspicions in regards to manipulations that far-fetched?

I wonder how long it will take for the law to catch up, for the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or Crown Prosecuting Services (CPS) to get a handle on these events and deter these actions to such a degree. There should be additional questions as the raters are all American, in light of their shortfall that approaches 18 trillion at present. It seems that the US has no options, no solution and no resolution strategy, yet we see that the big four give ratings are all American. The last part is not an accusation in any way, yet the fact that the Auditors need new oversight, especially in the light of American auditing firm Pricewaterhouse Cooper as they will face questions regarding Tesco. As the 4 largest auditors include UK and Netherlands, why are there only American raters (of the proportions of the large 4)? With the risk of manipulation, should there not be a British and even a French or a Dutch rating service? Let’s not forget that PwC faces possible investigation, not because they are more likely than not guilty, but because their innocence needs to be proven beyond any doubt, especially in light of the amount of companies audited by them as well as the issue of 199 auditors (as I calculated them) not finding anything. When we consider the length of time that PwC has had Tesco as a customer, yet, these are two separate issues, there is no inkling of suspicion that auditors are part of any manipulation, yet the auditor’s data is essential to such steps.

Where is the solution?

Not sure if I know of one, laws can be made draconian to give much harsher sentence to the transgressors, but the issue is not the transgressors, the issue is that these ‘manipulators’ have by definition of law not broken any rules. Yes, we see the fines of Libor and soon Forex, these transgressions are seemingly clear, but what of the raters and the analysts? The issues of data are at the foundation here. That what is raw data and how it becomes processed data is now at the centre of it all. That what is construed to be the creator of waves through analysts, raters and auditors; Auditors collecting the data, analysts to manipulate (which is what they might see as a simple application of personal preference and weighting) and raters to set the pace for investors and shareholders.

So tell me, how wrong is MY view and why have these influential cogs not been dealt with through legislation?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as 60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!, Alibaba, Bank of America Corp, Barclays, Citigroup, CPS, Crown Prosecuting Services, Darrell Huff, Department of Public Prosecutions, DPP, Egan-Jones, Fitch, Forex, Fortune, fortune.com, George Osborne, How to lie with statistics, HSBC, Jim Prosser, JP Morgan, LIBOR, Moody's, Price Waterfall Blooper, Pricewaterhouse Cooper, Royal Bank of Scotland, S&P, Sainsbury, Tesco, Twitter

November 14, 2014 · 16:23

Sacking the editor?

That is the question that is currently on my mind. What to do about Martin Ivens, should he be sacked, should he be allowed vindication, should he be prosecuted? You see, it is time that the editors are held responsible for what they do, that they are being held up into the light for what was said, exploited and then forgotten, just so that these people can prostitute events for circulation. What do you think?

Why Martin Ivens? That is of course the question that needs answering. It all started with the news on March 19th when I wrote ‘Any sport implies corruption! In this I looked at the events when the Guardian (one of several papers) reported on allegations against Qatar. As stated before it is about evidence and ‘more likely than not’, I also personally speculated on the chance that it was more likely that several advertisement players wanted change as Qatar was just inconvenient. And let’s face it, the press catering to advertisement dollars is not that far-fetched, if you doubt that, then consider the Sony events from November 2013.

The big issue becomes July 28th when we see the issues explode a little further when even Reuters stated “Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported that some of the “millions of documents” it had seen linked payments by former FIFA executive committee member Mohamed Bin Hammam to officials to win backing for Qatar’s World Cup bid“, so here we have it. I think that if Martin Ivens wants to keep his job, he needs to publish these ‘millions of documents‘, if he cannot, or does not, then we should consider prosecuting Martin Ivens for slander and he should be held accountable for serious breaches of journalistic integrity, which should be done by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), but in light of what we have seen, they will not be up to the task, unwilling to do anything and in the end, they will become the joke that Hacked-off proclaimed them to be from day one.

Yet, can we attack Martin Ivens like that? Yes, we can! However, Martin Ivens has every right to vindicate himself by publishing the data (millions of records) that they saw. What are the chances that we get just a lame excuse? Time will tell, but as we have looked at the events in the last two years, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be held to account.

But should it be Martin Ivens? If we see the CNN article that I used in the July article, we see “Sarah Baxter, deputy editor of the Sunday Times, told CNN in an interview. Qatar commits to labour reforms the impact of changing World Cup dates ‘We’ve seen millions of documents that prove without a shadow of doubt that corruption was involved. There is clear evidence linking payments to people who have influence over the decision of who hosted the World Cup’“, in my mind it should be both, but in the end, as Martin Ivens did not go against this, it seems to make him an accessory to the event, guilty by omission. In the end this all might remain academic if IPSO does not act, because a complaint needs to be filed, yet consider how soccer is dragged through the mud here, without the evidence that the Sunday Times claims to have, the scope of events regarding FIFA will change to the larger degree.

This is however not the end, there are additional issues with the investigation as we saw delay upon delay and now the ‘verdict’ also calls issues into question. A more reliable source (at http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30044791), asks some of these question: “But Garcia’s statement, issued less than four hours after the report was published, has reopened the debate about the validity of the bidding process for both the 2018 and 2022 competitions“, a second statement “‘Fifa has no choice but to publish Michael Garcia’s report in full if it expects anyone to believe their claims that there has been no cover-up over allegations of corruption in the World Cup bidding process,’ said British MP Clive Efford, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Sport.”

That part is spot on in my mind, let’s not forget that in my mind, the jobs of both Martin Ivens and Sarah Baxter are on the line as I see it, especially in a time when the bulk of all journalism is regarded by many to have no integrity left.

The final statement that opens the barn is: “In view of the fact Michael Garcia has now stated he is not happy with the findings and is to appeal, I await with interest to see what further disclosures will be made,” said Boyce“, which beckons a few more issues. Why report on something that is not satisfactory? What findings? Which evidence? It seems interesting that the 430 page report is set into a 42 page summary, when we see the Guardian we see the implied event that someone else wrote the summary. Why? Why did both reports not come from Michael Garcia (at http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/13/farce-fifa-michael-garcia-erroneous-ethics-report), why do we see the following quote “Garcia’s dramatic intervention came just hours after Eckert had confirmed the Guardian’s revelation that Russia and Qatar would be cleared of substantive wrongdoing and would not be stripped of the tournaments despite a whirlwind of speculation“, so are some people now spinning in regards to possible advertisers missing out on big business dollars for media? Because, as I see it, the issues remains, was all this about inconvenience or actual corruption, and if the second, why does the summary not bear out the full report if corruption has been proven? Yet overall there are valid questions too, when I see the quote “Russian bid executives claimed that all their emails were wiped from their rented computers. Alexei Sorokin, who runs Russia’s 2018 organising committee, denied a deliberate cover-up“, I do wonder how such incompetence is even allowed in such a prestigious environment. Where were the back-ups? Would the achievement of success not warrant back-ups for a job well done and these documents would have been kept as evidence that a job was well done? Would these documents not show the value of Alexei Sorokin to his government?

So even as the guilt is not proven, the ‘claim‘ of ‘millions of documents‘ still requires scrutiny, because if this is not adhered to, we are confronted with more than one level of corruption, possible corruption of ethics by the press, possible corruption of standards by FIFA and possible corruption from bidders unproven due to incompetence.

I hope that the true investigators will speak out on evidence, for the simple consequence of inaction could be the beginning of a wave of mistrust into sports. The one place where acts of corruption could have a long term effect, who wants to watch a sport series, where a foundation of trust can no longer be relied upon, if that happens what would we end up watching?

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alexei Sorokin, British MP, Clive Efford, CNN, FIFA, Hacked off, IPSO, Journalism, Martin Ivens, Michael Garcia, Qatar, Russia, Sarah Baxter, Shadow Minister for Sport, Sunday Times, the Guardian

November 14, 2014 · 15:01

Who is guilty?

This is a question we all seem to know, when we hear the words MH-117 and Ukraine. However, is that position a given fact? You see, we all seem to blame and to some extent I also blamed, but it seems to me that I am the only one who is asking the questions that need answering.

Let’s take a look at the events and the sides.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crashed on July 17th 2014. The first fact given and already it is an incorrect one. MH-117 was shot out of the sky. Let’s not beat around the bush, it was shot down with advanced technology. No shoulder held equipment could have done this; it required serious hardware to achieve this. It happened over Donetsk, an area under control of pro-Russian separatists. The only information that seems correct is that this was done by pro-Russian separatists. After this, the press takes a gander and accusations are flying all over the place, several of them pretty wild ones.

The first issue is found here: Evidence from open sources indicated that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a BUK missile launcher on 17 July and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne (at http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/journalists-find-solid-russian-ties-to-missile-that-hit-mh17-371161.html). I have a few issues with the Bellingcat report! It can be found (at https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Origin-of-the-Separatists-Buk-A-Bellingcat-Investigation1.pdf).

I think the reader will need to make up their own minds, but let me elaborate on my reasoning. My issue here is that there is no clear confirmation on the photos. Faking social media events is too easy, some pictures are too grainy, the chances and danger of photo editing is too high. The report should have listed all the particulars of EVERY photo, where it was found, when downloaded and then we have other issues, data on a JPG can be manipulated, who took the photo and when.

These events give one clear view in my mind, the Russians are not proven guilty and the separatists are not innocent.

The second issue I have with all this are the Americans. They claim to have evidence, but will not release it. In my mind, if you held the Dutch and Australians in actual high regard, you would have released all footage and data. The next part is pure speculation on my part (just warning you ahead of it all). I think that the Americans have clear evidence and that evidence is that the BUK never came from Russia. I will elaborate on this a little later on in this article. In addition, I am amazed that both UK (GCHQ) and France (DGSE) have not stepped forward with satellite data either. Do you actually believe that in an area, so important for the near future would not keep their eyes on this all? Let us not forget that the Iraq debacle with these satellite pictures, not revealing WMD’s is the reason why most Europeans, actually most non-Americans do not trust America at present. To restore some credibility, they should have released this data, especially as this was a civilian aircraft, shot down by unlawful combatants, meaning non-combatants who directly engage in armed conflict. They are non-combatants as the pro-Russian separatists are members, not part of any recognised national army. So, they are unlawful combatants at best, terrorists at worst (shooting down a civilian plane is regarded as a terrorist act).

It is my personal believe, (again, an assumption, but a likely one) that the fault lies DIRECTLY with the Ukrainian government. Let me explain my reasoning. We know that the Ukraine has BUK units; there is additional information (non-reliable) that former Ukrainian soldiers are part of the pro-Russian separatists. One statement (again non-reliable) is “one militant told reporters that they originated ‘from a military warehouse'”. Yet is this such a stretch?

A linked quote is “The Minister of Interior Affairs Arsen Avakov gave orders to blow up the warehouse with arms and ammunition of military unit 3037 of the National Guard of Ukraine in Donetsk, to prevent the capture of remaining stock of arms and ammunition by separatists” (at http://igcp.eu/hronika-prestupleniy/military-warehouse-burned-down-donetsk?language=en).

Now it is time for my theory (again it is an assumption based upon information I found).

Russian separatists got hold of hardware (weapons, ammunition and vehicles) when they sprang into action. One of the vehicles (a set of three) was a BUK. Now this is not the full answer. You see, to properly operate a BUK you need a trained team, if not then there are a dozen things that will go wrong and as such MH-117 would never have been shot down with one missile, perhaps not even with 4 missiles. Here are my thoughts on the guilt of Ukraine.

The moment this was known, or even suspected that warehouses were raided, the Ukrainian government would have needed to alert all people, especially airlines. This was not done (as far as I know). When the BUK did its job, those in the Ukrainian government went into a blame game mode. More concerning is the chance that America has conformation of my theory, but they desperately need to do business with the Ukraine and this issue would make Ukraine not happy. So there we have it, because ego prevented people from ringing the alarm bell, a plane was shot down. If those power-hungry ‘commanders’ had rung the alarm bell, it is almost certain that MH-117 would have taken another path and these people would be alive today. Ego was the biggest killer, not the missile.

Again, this is based on a theory with limited data, now consider the facts. Do you think that Russia would hand over a BUK with a firing team to separatists? A situation that could escalate so fast, more important, do you think that these soldiers would shoot down a civilian airliner? All answers as I see them are a clear ‘NO!’ in my mind.

However, there were apparently ‘phone calls’ and as far as I saw, only the Daily Mail had them, which means that the ‘evidence’ is worthless, especially considering claims they made regarding FIFA in the past.

Another part comes from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/mh17-crash-kerry-evidence-pro-russia-separatists-responsibility) “‘we have enormous input about this that points fingers’ Kerry told CNN’s State of the Union, ‘it is pretty clear that this was a system from Russia, transferred to separatists. We know with confidence that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point of time’” something that was published on July 20^th.

It is the last part “We know with confidence that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point of time”. This MIGHT have been true, but where were they all? where is the list of tally for ALL the BUK systems Ukraine has, because the Ukraine does have them. Where are ALL the missiles? you see, i think that pro-Russian separatists did make plans and they needed hardware to create a win. With Crimea there was a bottleneck and pretty much all Crimean’s seem to have wanted to be returned to Russia, Donetsk is another matter, not all seem to prefer Russian return and as such it required military actions. Now, it is definitely possible (more likely than not is the legal term) that Russia would like to ‘assist’ to some extent with the separatists, because they look good if this happens, the idea that some people feel uneasy to join the EU and America is not everybody’s joyous idea. So if Donetsk becomes independent, it would be a good blow for Russia, yet I feel unable to believe that the Kremlin is so moronic (no other word fits the bill), to give access and control of Russian BUK systems to separatists, the backlash would be too hard.

So here we are, America might have evidence and refuses to release it, and we know for certain that separatists are guilty, but Russian guilt at present is not proven. There are too many issues and America keeping ‘evidence’ away is just too unreliable. Where lies the truth?

I have no clear answer, my assumptions are based on logic and factual interpretation of events, but I will admit firstly that I could be wrong too. It is up to you the reader to consider why three large players either have no satellite data or are unwilling to release it. Why?

The other path open now is that Russia could release all their satellite data, but are they willing to do this? Such evidence could exonerate the Russians, but they also have a stake in the fire, for as they give out the separatists, that connection would also be under fire, but would it be to the same extent? Consider that the units responsible are handed over to The Hague and that Donetsk would become a separate state, what would be the dynamic then? This is not a part that needs answering, but it should be looked at.

It will take a lot of time to figure out where the BUK exactly came from, but the louder some shout over the origin of the missile, whilst not handing over the evidence is a worry all by itself.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Military, Politics

Tagged as Arsen Avakov, bellingcat, BUK, Crimea, Daily Mirror, DGSE, Donetsk, GCHQ, John Kerry, Malaysia Airlines, MH-117, military unit 3037, pro-Russian separatists, separatists, State of the Union, the Guardian, the Hague

November 9, 2014 · 10:52

A buffet called Buffett

It is the independent that comes with the goods this morning (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/warren-buffett-tesco-losses-take-millions-off-berkshire-hathaway-earnings-9848441.html), and even though Tesco is at the centre, this is not about Tesco; it is about all of us!

The article refers to a view given a few weeks ago when we saw ‘Mr Buffett, who has called his investment in Tesco a “huge mistake”‘, this is all good, and we saw this before, but how does this amount to Warren Buffett being the ‘Sage of Omaha‘ go from a brand name to a person in a public area where the others can snack on him, like food for Hyena’s and so on.

Well, this is all about us in the end and about image and ego. You see, there is something massively wrong with those who WERE (past tense) with Tesco and as the quarter of a billion hole was found, instead of calling for restraint and standing by the ethical high ground Dave Lewis was standing. People like Mike Ashley who did bet on Tesco bouncing back, as they should and I hope that Mike Ashley makes a bundle on this. Yet, the centre piece actually not one but two of them are all ignored. The first one is that Tesco still made a billion, so as we see people running away in ‘fear’ and all other sorts of reasons, the value of Tesco went down. I reckon that those screaming in misconceived ‘horror’ are now paying for the speedy speaking, I am not impressed with their anguish and I am not convinced that it was genuine.

You see, if the financial backers had stood firm with Lewis, the hurt might have been there, but the structural repair would have been basic structural repairs and the pain to the financial backers would have been slightly more than superficial in the end.

The second part of this stake is Pricewaterhouse Coopers. There are too many questions, no answers coming in and no solutions directly in sight, other than those that would continue Tesco at a massively reduced size. I am still not impressed, you see, we all did this to ourselves. I oppose certain practices, not just because the stakes are high, but because as we ‘cater’ to profit, especially unnatural high percentages, we only cater to fatal self-inflicted wounding. So how does this link to Mr Warren Buffet (oops, intentional typo). You see we get that from the following two quotes ‘A week after Mr Buffett significantly reduced his shares in the retailer he saw $1bn (£160mn) wiped off the value of his stake in IBM, after the tech giant recorded a 17 per cent drop in its third quarter profits‘ and ‘Just days later, Coca-Cola caused Mr Buffett’s investment losses to climb to $2bn (£1.26mn) after the soft-drinks giant’s shares plummeted six per cent following flat sales and a lowered guidance for the year‘. So how does this affect us? Well consider the lives we have, the things we buy and the corners we cut. Are the two drops even a surprise and more important is the Tesco example strong enough for others not to play that dangerous game? I am not implying that certain ‘errors’ are currently being instigated, but consider the news on how America is now so much on a better track with people having jobs (which is true), yet consider when people like you and me spend money on a laptop, software and on cheaper food and no fuzzy drinks. I can say ‘YAY!’ to all three. My laptop (not an IBM Lenovo) is failing me, it is 4 years old and I have no budget for at least a year to replace it. Can you afford a new laptop, just like that? I have not bought software, still using Office 2010 (and happy to use it) and to keep my likes budgeted, my last can of coke was about 2 weeks ago. Many are turning their dimes to make ends meet and the market forgot about the people like you and me! In the end the concept requires people to buy and the juggling of numbers is no longer an option, we all depend on the cheaper places like Aldi to get a good deal. So how can Coca Cola remain so high? Will 6% be just the start of the plummeting for now? Yes, we tend to buy a little extra during Christmas and America has an upcoming thanksgiving in less than 3 weeks and Christmas 4 weeks after that, yet what happens 6 weeks after that? Will jobs suddenly get lost again, with unemployment numbers to go up? I am not sure, but it is not unlikely. People like financial analyst Charles Nenner have been speaking in regards to a crashing Dollar; he stated ‘The government has loans outstanding that are very short term. If interest rates only go up a half a percent, they are already in trouble. Also, the United States doesn’t have the power to force a lot (of Treasury bonds) on other countries because the United States has decided not to be a power anymore‘, which is kind of funny, because I saw that danger scenario coming for well over a year ago. Yes, I have seen some of the abuse of people stating that I am so wrong, which is a view that is fair enough, yet what happens when visible analysts in the economic market, not just like Charles Nenner, but heaps of others all making predictions in the same direction, then what will you do? Disagree a little more, or just until the dollar becomes Junk (or on equal footing with the Yen), then who will YOU blame?

Those who have no debt at that point will just lose mobility, those in debt will feel that drowning feeling sooner then they think. In the end we all did this to ourselves (to some degree). So as warren seems to lose 2 billion out of the 70 he had. I think that these ‘investors’ draining on the 10%-15% they expect, will soon need to refocus on the options where it is not about how quick you make a buck, but how you can slowly make some dollars and not lose your investments. That will be centre to all future deliberations, those who do will hold on to the farm, those who don’t will hand their farms over to those who did and now there is no actual option to recover for those who lost it. That is at the centre, as the economy is not restoring to the public and the consumers we see a push towards Aldi and other budget minded places like Aldi.

These ‘investors’ should start to realise that getting a 3% return is not that bad, it beats praying for profit in excess of 10%, which is less and less realistic, whilst they end up writing off the virtual money pool they thought they had. It all starts with the consumer, investors forgot about that, no matter what profit you expect or what is ‘balanced’ on paper, if people do not have the money to buy, it pretty much ends and that part was ignored by too many for too long a time.

The other part in all this remains PwC, let’s just accept that not all is well when we see ‘cover my back‘ statements and signing off on well over 100 million in inflated numbers, especially with a 10 million pound auditing bill, can we agree to the small fact that a clear statement after a thorough investigation at PwC could have prevented a massive loss of value for Tesco, which would have kept many investors in a lessened state of panic. By the way, did Coca Cola downgrade the profits as the stimulus is now ending? If so, what true hardships are ahead for the people as funds will need to come from other places?

For now the people are still struggling and poverty has never been higher in the US, so there will be consequences there too, but how much of it will hit the UK full on is a matter that will require time to investigate and time to protect against, time that seems to be wasted on several low yielding efforts (read: concepts that will not come to fruition). I cannot state what the best course of action is, but I feel fairly certain that the current trend will not solve anything; it will only make it harder for everyone down the track.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Aldi, Charles Nenner, Coca Cola, Dave Lewis, IBM, Mr Buffett, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, PwC, Sage of Omaha, Tesco, US, Warren Buffett

Category Archives: Politics

Recent Posts

Archives