Category Archives: Politics

June 6, 2013 · 20:35

The freedom to misdirect?

We see all kinds of information and misdirection, almost at any given day. If one good thing is mentioned, another bad thing is swallowed into silence. So when I saw the message on Sky News that “Latvia to join EU”, I had a look.

So Latvia is now to become the 18th Euro state. That part is however you take it. The average Brit will see this as a fearful motion for another few hundred thousand to seek out the London Limelight on a permanent basis. Others might have their own thoughts and reservations. Not all of them will be negative, as Latvia has a decent record in the shipping industry.

Three parts got my eye, and they are at least worrying, infuriating might be a slightly better word. The first quote was from the European Commission that ‘Latvia is ready to adopt the Euro in 2014‘. An interesting quote, especially as well over 60% of Latvia is fiercely against the Euro. Let us be fair, why adopt a sinking ship. Would you buy the Titanic if you found it parked against an iceberg? At worst it is a 3800 meter walk back to the boat (straight down).

It is the quote from the Latvian Prime Minister that is the second quote of concern: “Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis welcomed the news, saying in Riga that ‘joining the Euro will benefit Latvia’s economy by removing currency conversion costs and raising Latvia’s credit rating’.”

Really? You want to adapt even more credit option whilst you are already in a position to drown in current debts? How clueless does that seem? It will take five years to get past the weakness gained by Cyprus, and at least 15 years to get a grip on the financial vise that Greece is giving the rest of the EU. Is this a ploy to remove the option for the UK to remove itself from the EU? If that is so, then the current administration is not just heading towards failure at the next election, at that point we look at a total overwhelming victory by UKIP next election. I have nothing against UKIP, but I do not think that to be a particularly good idea. Mostly, as a large part of UKIP would be seated at senior position whilst having little more than junior levels of experience. (I just call them how I personally see them). They would be elected in charge, whilst becoming a real danger to create an unresolvable mess for two administrations to come (again a personal view of mine). I will here and now state quite clearly that this is an assumption on MY side. I will also happily add information proving me wrong when and if the time comes.

Back to Latvia!

The second quote is nothing compared to the third one. “We think Euro membership will increase investment activity. We need only to look at the Estonian example where investment in the non-financial sector doubled.” (Source: http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=877664 ).

This I see as a massive misdirection. The only reason that this looks this way is because Skype was an Estonian invention (a brilliant one). It comes from the people who initially came up with Kazaa. So yes, even though their mention might be correct, the fact that one product is the major reason behind the non-financial investment is thrown into the deep left field of unmentioned factors. Of course Tallinn is also famous for the Beer ferries to Stockholm. It is indeed a pretty city to see, uncannily picturesque and of course it has some visibility for the hourly lady rental services (some are extremely good looking and it is perfectly legal in Estonia). So which of these options give that reason for investments? Also interesting is that this newscast from Sky News did not come with the identity of a writer. You see, here is where we take a look at a few things. Especially when we consider the mention by Leveson and in regards to Ethics. I think that this article is missing a lot of facts and some are too far out of context. However, this is again my personal view on the matter at hand.

Danger 1.
The EU economy is as fragile as it gets. I will not debate here whether it is a good idea to add Latvia to the list. It is important to consider the Latvian addition to the Euro. Especially, when we read statements from their PM is strong at mentioning of the option of upping their credit rating. That part will hit back to the Euro sooner rather than later and as such the other Euro nations as well. It only makes a stronger case for the UK to get out of the EU (I am not convinced it is the right option at present), and get out fast. Even if they do not, additional reasoning for better and more complete regulations is required for all kinds of banks and financial institutions. That would be needed BEFORE nations get added to the Euro as it allows for a gap for re-managing all kinds of financial packages, that would require those government to need additional IMF support. We all know where that leads the rest.

Danger 2.
Looking at Estonia? Why, because these nations are neighbours? Tallinn has a direct ferry connection with Helsinki and a ferry connection with Stockholm (amongst others). Non-financial investments are nice, but how many and who? Skype (invented in Estonia) got a strong influx by Microsoft and twice the amount of what? Another nation getting a few taxable Billions for Skype does not put Latvia in the clear (also much of that amount went to a small group of private developers) as Microsoft bought it. There is every chance that Skype will be phased out of Estonia, then what? This does not reflect badly on Estonia as it has several economic options. Latvia does not have those in equal measure. It has options, but which ones exactly? It seems that the initial article does not bear that out clearly at all.

Another quote to mention is “Latvia is a small, open economy” the Latvian Prime Minister said. Anyone remember Iceland 2004? Similar words were spoken then. That did not pan out to well for that island, as well as many of their inhabitants (and a massive amount of places after that). This is exactly why those banking reforms I pleaded for in many situations are needed and needed fast. There is NO indications that this is about to happen here, but it is proven that greed is eternal; people in power have been willing to sell away what they can and remain unaccountable after that. It is clear that the open market industry cannot be trusted the way it is. It is even proven that too many in charge are passing the buck and letting those who are innocent pay for the hardships created by the greedy (Greece and Cyprus are clear evidence of that).

These elements give additional strengths to the UKIP mission to get out of the EU, which also gives inevitable strength to the German group under Bernd Lucke, who will get the power for the last push out of the Euro. With these two elements the UK and Germany, the EU will have more than two little problems floating their way. Should this come to pass then the German chancellor Merkel will end up getting a new job and as things go, there might be a reasonable ‘danger’ for an Early UK election. At that point it will be the EU segregation of coin or nation through possible future Chancellor Lucke of Germany and Prime Minister Farage of UK that will change the EU and possibly even sink it completely. The simple reasoning is that the Euro cannot survive without both. It might survive the departure of one, but no way will it survive both leaving their support to the coin.

So, is this just speaking doom?

I will always agree that these are thoughts (non-positive ones) from me and my way of thinking. Experts will speak out on how wrong I am. Those experts also predicted that the economy was already on the rise in 2013. This has been proven wrong in most EU nations. Where their predictions were right, they were between ½% and 1½% too optimistic. For the EU it is not just about the economy, it is about getting a handle on the current massive debts. Debts so massive that it is likely to take in some cases up to three generations to get back on the horse. To add nations to a coin is one thing, but when we read about raised credit ratings it comes down to pushing many further down a debt driven society. That in a society where on average in the EU nation’s 1 out of 8 do not have a job, in some cases it is 1 out of 4. That is no place to be in a debt driven society. That is not a social structure, that is in my humble opinion seen as the population gnawing on the remaining scraps called ‘their nation’ before those nations become some industrialised economic ownership, where you either work at THEIR leisure, or you perish.

It would be fair of you the reader to dismiss this thought. Before you do, consider that Greece had been holding a fire sale of what is still in their name (for now). This act is to reduce a debt of millions, out of a total debt which surpasses several hundreds of billion. No more than a drop of water on a hot plate. That happened last year (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/19/debt-ridden-greece-firesale)

So what happens when a nation has nothing left? Is my reasoning that outlandish? Those sales might get them somewhere near 2 billion, whilst 15 billion is due in 2015. Even if ALL savings from the entire Greek population is nationalised (confiscated). It might just be enough to get the 15 billion. So what to do about the other 300 billion not paid? I am not going after Greece; this is not about the Greek debt. This is about OTHER new members not adding to this, and for that certain precautions are needed. Certain regulations for banks and financial institutions need to be in place. Even if the IMF now admits that the damage through Austerity was ‘miscalculated’. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/05/imf-underestimated-damage-austerity-would-do-to-greece) In all honesty, I saw that one coming a mile away. It has been known at least since the early 1600’s that a plucked chicken has little feathers left. (And boy did that chook get itself plucked!)

As messages of rephrasing ‘the message‘, it has been clear that there is a real danger that the Euro is way too close to a non-successful triple bypass.

If a new member dumps their domino on the EU and Greece falls, which will topple Cyprus and then the effect will topple France, Italy, which in turn will topple the Dutch and remaining domino stones (read weak economic countries). What will be left? I will keep one eye on the Guardian the next few weeks as people like Larry Elliott and Phillip Inman, who are excellent financial correspondents, add their views to the internet.

If there is any chance of surviving, then it is only possible if credit limits are frozen and debts are lowered. So far no one is on top of that approach and the EU will change as team Lucke/Ferage might remove the little options the EU had left. Are they wrong? I am not sure, but I do not blame these two for getting their nations out of a collision whilst the others keep on failing to successfully manage their budgets.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Bernd Lucke, Cyprus, Estonia, Eu, Farage, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guardian, Helsinki, IMF, Larry Elliott, Latvia, Merkel, Nigel Farage, Phillip Inman, Sky News, Skype, Tallinn, UKIP, Valdis Dombrovskis

June 5, 2013 · 15:29

Multi billion Euro train ride

Most of us have taken a train before. Most of us on normal trains and possibly also on a special train here and there as a tourist. Yet, in Europe, many rely on the use of fast trains. One of the most famous one is the Thalys from Amsterdam to Paris and the Eurostar from London to Paris. It takes a few hours, yet the combination of comfort and locations make this option more interesting then grabbing the plane.

As a business solution, the Thalys has a few setbacks (it seems to be around the pricing mostly) and as such an alternative fast train was needed between Amsterdam and Brussels. As this track, for business reasons requires a few extra stops the Thalys was not regarded as a solution (they use the same tracks). The Dutch and Belgium delegation looked for an alternative and the Italian Fyra from AnselmoBreda was chosen.

So why the cost?

The entire track could not be used, so additional tracks were required. This little caper costed the taxpayers 7 billion and was delivered one year early. Many would ask why this is an issue. Well, on an annual 3% interest, a 7 billion track one year early will gain an additional 210 million euro in interest cost. Yes, questions should be asked! Now follow this up with the trains not working, well over 50% cancelled and additional flaws and security issues has delayed this option and is now out of commission as these weak spots are added and added. A parliamentary commission is now arranged to look at these flaws.

Choices?

The Dutch have a record of achievement in trains, and even though they have been running intercity trains for decades, none of them were designed for the 250Km speeds (neither is Fyra as now seems the case). Why this need for speed? Let us not forget that the distance between Amsterdam and Brussels is only 175Km. With the additional stops made, other options could be implemented; some of them would actually work and not require billions in additional tracks.

For example there is the Swedish X-2000 train (now called the SJ 2000). The train can get up to 276Km/Hr, yet is implemented to go no faster than 210Km/hr. The reason for this is that the Swedish signal system was not designed for trains with higher speeds. An issue that is not in play with the Dutch High Speed lines. Another option was the French Thalys already in use for Amsterdam – Paris. Was it such a leap to order a few more for the Amsterdam – Brussels track? There are additional thoughts. Several nations have had their share of successes. Germany (a nation the Dutch want to do business with) has its options and so does the UK, Denmark, Sweden, China and Japan (more options exist). So why choose the Italian solution? There is the Finnish Allegro, which was built by the French. So we see several operating solutions that have proven themselves. Again the question of choice remains, why Italy?

Well, in honesty, AnsalmoBreda does have a track record. There is the Bombardier Zefiro and a few other options with speed options of 250 and 300Km/hr. So it was not a far-fetched solution at first. So why is it such a failure? That is the question that will haunt Dutch Parliament for months to come. It will also have consequences for both AnselmoBreda and Italy itself too. If a solution is not found, in addition to the upcoming bankruptcy of AnselmoBreda, we will see additional consequences for Italy as a branch of implemented technology will have no option to survive in regards service and maintenance in addition to the costs of hundreds of millions in trains. Trains, in such a condition, that the fyra has been regarded by both Belgium and Dutch experts as utterly non saveable.

Is that true?

The blame game has started in full today and as such fingers are pointed at one another. The Italians mentioned too much speeding in regards to snowy conditions. This is interesting as the Thalys seems to have no real issues with that. In addition the Swedish trains seem to roll along with rails covered in snow almost 40% of the time. The Belgium and Dutch report are damning to a degree not often seen. If accepted as true then it will be years to repair, redesign and implement changes to the current train. Why not exchange these trains for the Bombardier Zefiro?

I am not judging AnselmoBreda as such. I am however wondering how all this ‘poohaa’ can be condoned to offer a train service that is only up to 17 minutes faster. Let us reiterate that! They spend billions to get somewhere up to 17 minutes faster. Time most will waste on coffee, chats and so on. That would be an optimised time; not taking into account the stops and so on, in the end 15 minutes might be saved. Any business that seems to be in that kind of savings should move towards video conferencing is my idea!

I know, there will be loads of issues that cannot be resolved through video, and I will grant that, but the issue of losing up to 17 minutes is a joke! Especially considering the time people waste EVERY DAY! If we compare this to current Dutch materials, the time difference does become 22 minutes. That is current rolling, proven and active materials. This is a solution that would not have required the high speed track solution (and one that has proven to be quite comfortable). From that we can come to the question “Who has been buttering the bread of these deciding politicians?”

Consider that 7 Billion could have done heaps for Dutch housing, Business and employment rates. I would wonder what other spending were this overly enthusiastic. It seems that some took the Dutch taxpayer for a ride (and then some).

From what I see at present a choice of investment was made which was debatable to begin with and not all blame will/should fall with AnselmoBreda.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Amsterdam, AnselmoBreda, Brussel, Fyra, Hi seed trains, Intercity, Nederlandse Spoorwegen, NS, parliamentary commission, Rotterdam, thalys, Trains, transportation, Trein

June 1, 2013 · 00:50

Government ministers, be warned!

This is a call, not to the gamers, but to the finance and Justice Ministers in those nations. Whatever plans you have to boost your economy/security, as present indicators go, Microsoft and likely Sony too, are uniting to make it a lot harder for you.

They will come with all kind of presentations, half-baked spins and flat out misrepresentation. The goal is for some of the fat-cat executives, who are already on 6 and 7 figure incomes to get more bonuses. Guess what! They will not pay taxations, and your economy will become harder challenge if you do not act NOW!

So, here are the facts.

Currently game shops buy games and resell them. This is called the sale of pre-owned games. There is nothing illegal; the original purchaser is getting rid of his/her game. Often this does not even go for money, but for credit in the same store. This has been going on for at least a decade. With game shops living on the minimal margins as is, this boosts their shop enough for them to get by a little better. If this falls away, these shops will have to let go of more staff members and as such it will hurt the economy. This is what some would call: ‘the margin of the little guy’.

The last one is almost literal. Most kids, and at times also their parents cannot afford to buy new games all the time, many not even some of the time. A new console game is often between AU$80 – AU$139 (or equivalent). So, to be able to buy their kids a pre-owned game is a way to stop piracy. Personally I think it is a good solution.

This has been a thorn in the eye of some game makers as they imagine that their revenues are down because of this re-selling of games. Simply put, they are slightly nuts (yes, they might lose a little revenue, but nowhere as much as they claim). The overwhelming part CANNOT afford the amounts charged for new games. They will often buy 1-3 new games a year, but that is it. So if they want to play a little more they will have to rely on a few pre-owned games. That market is now more under threat. In addition, the solutions that will come into play, is that these people must buy an ADDITIONAL fee to unlock such a game. Interesting enough, that fee part is likely to be nicely arranged through a non-taxation nation, which means YOUR economy will not gain an inch, it will lose a mile.

There are two parts to this issue. 90% is the simple pre-owned game that is played by one person. The other part consists of games like Mass Effect 3, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed and a few others. They have a specific additional option to play online. Now often, these games have a voucher to freely unlock the multi-player part. This is only for the original buyer. Whoever buys a pre-owned game would need to buy such a seasonal pass. I do not object to that part. I think it is fair that these resources (server connections) are intended for the original buyer. This option often also affects the sport games. Information has been spread all over the gaming sites that indicate that Electronic Arts, Microsoft and likely Sony are now price arranging certain affairs to force people to such fees. This is an arrangement that is so unacceptable that Finance ministers need to step in.

Their intervention is required on two fronts!

1. In your own benefit, if these fees are forced, they are to be arranged, not only on a local level, but these fees are to be TAXATED! That means that Microsoft will start paying tax on every unlock they charge, in addition they will have to mandatory report all numbers in this regard. It might make the price of a game unlock a $3-$5 more expensive, but it is the only way to force these numbers out. These three companies are bleeding people dry and no-one is stepping up to the plate to protect them from this entertainment Cartel, because, simply put, that is pretty much what they are now.

1b. for decades the console industry has been numbered away in the margins whilst this is a multi-billion dollar industry (on a global scale). People get taxed, taxed and taxed again, whilst those big companies are taxed less and less, because it is all virtually done somewhere else. It is time that if new Digital legislation is passed in their favour, then it will not be allowed until the rights and duties on the consumers site is agreed upon, including setting the transaction location at the BUYERS location, not at some vague transaction point. Any minister looking at a deficit, well here is a possible option for more taxable revenue.

2. All the indication point to a certainty that these two companies are now expanding into data collecting on a massive scale. Soon, people will have no longer a private identity, but a digital one at the mercy of Microsoft/Sony, to use as they see fit. I think it is now becoming essential to protect your local business environment that also depends on collected data to prevent 2 companies to freely have access to hundreds of millions of records with no accountability to anyone. I feel that it is important that a digital identity must at any given time be free from all identifying marks before it is collected, not when it is cleaned. In 2011 Sony lost millions of account details including credit card details. The moment these events allow massive data files to come into the hands of cyber criminals, we will experience additional dangers to identity theft, large scale fraud and banking hazards. I regard that legislation in these fields are not ready on a global scale. When this happens it would quickly escalate to a point where the banks will no longer be able to take such damaging hits. What happens then? What happens when people lose all their money because their safety is now in the hands of 2 companies whilst the consumer has almost nothing to control in the matter?

Microsoft and Sony are both playing on hypes and marketing to unleash a sincere danger up on the world. Many will trivialise this, but when these consoles start to link to the social media, an abundance of data will be collected, including all kinds of personal details, including banking details. Should you the reader think it is all a joke, then question why Microsoft announced a growth from 15000 servers to over 200000 servers? This is a cost unlike any company has ever seen, and Microsoft does not do things from the goodness of their hearts (Neither does Sony for that matter). Whatever the business purpose it has, we can be certain that several segments of business all over the world will feel that result. It is important that business or not, it is the individual that has the right to switch these intrusions off without that hurting the option of playing a game.

It must be stated clearly that not all is known yet, however as both companies will release these systems on a global scale within 6 months, it is clear that not doing anything now, will mean that these companies will get free reign soon enough. Issues that must be properly investigated and it must be made clear to the consumer what they are in for.

First Source Gamespot (http://au.gamespot.com/news/xbox-one-has-preowned-fee-report-6408671): “Microsoft today confirmed with Wired that all Xbox One game discs must be installed to the HDD to play and that while installs to other hard drives are allowed, users will need to pay an unspecified fee to do so.”

– In this scenario a person cannot give an old game to a family member as a present. This is unacceptable. In the scenario I mention it is clear that only ONE system can access this game (as it should be). Again, I must underline that this is for single player option only. It is fair that the second person has no free access to an online option, options that cost resources and it is not fair to make these providers give away such resources for free.

In addition, as Microsoft calls their system an ‘all in one entertainment system’, whilst only adding a 500Gb drive, with all these installations and downloads, it becomes a debate whether such a system is properly equipped to deal with customer requests without forcing people to download under expensive broadband plans. An issue I raised in a previous blog (Source: https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/05/24/spin-dryers-by-microsoft).

Second Source (source: http://au.gamespot.com/news/german-commission-calls-out-xbox-one-privacy-issues-6408935): “Speaking with news site Spiegel (translated by Games Industry International), Germany’s federal data protection commissioner Peter Schaar likened the next-generation console to a ‘monitoring device.’”

– There are several issues involving the privacy of a person. If this is no longer a gaming console, but an all in one entertainment system, then this system is supposed to go to a much larger audience, and as such, monitoring activities of these advanced nature where all our actions are registered on the cloud (as some vaguely report) should raise a lot more questions then they currently are. In this case it was the German magazine Spiegel that had the inside track, yet it seems that many options to evade privacy remain possible. In another article the following quote was placed “a Microsoft representative said that the machine ‘is not always watching or always listening.’” So who decides this? Many people will not know the intricacies of such settings and as such we can paraphrase Nietzsche by “And the data collectors, they collected on”.

I did mention in the very beginning that Electronic Arts is involved. How so? (Source: http://au.gamespot.com/news/ea-killing-online-passes-for-existing-games-6409065). In this article titled: “EA killing Online Passes for existing games” it was stated that EA was no longer charging for online gaming. I do not see this as an act out of the kindness of their hearts. I read this personally as an act to smooth the way for pre-owned charging. EA needs these two consoles and it is playing nice to smooth the way for certain people to charge in the field discussed earlier. That is my personal vision. The quote read: “We heard the feedback from players and decided to do away with Online Pass altogether.” This sounds great, but those online services cost money. Normally a new game gives access; so again, it seems to me that these passes are all about the pre-owners. This is likely to evade a future discussion of double dipping the credit card of this consumer group.

The question remains, what exactly will Sony do? Until the biggest console point in the year (the E3 in America) happens, we will likely stay in the dark. It is however likely that Sony and Microsoft have completed deals; as such an advantage would not be given to any competitor to avoid a massive global shift of the console market. Such an agreement could be seen as evidence to price fixing and a Cartel approach to a consumer market. Since when has that EVER been an acceptable step?

So, now it is time to get personal in this blog.

Australia
To Mr Wayne Swan, our current treasurer and Mr Joe Hockey, our current shadow Treasurer. Australia has a deficit and we are always looking at a solution that allows for the growth of our nation. Should these issues be allowed as they are? We all pay taxation, and as such it is in all our interests that if businesses get hurt in the way they are by charging for pre-owned gaming. No matter what solution Microsoft comes up with in regards to these charges, it is revenue, and as such it should be taxed in Australia. To Mr Prof John McMillan, Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), how protected are we from this level of data collecting? I would like to raise the case R and Credit Reporting Agency [2011] AICmrCN 12. Specifically Section 18G(a) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Even though this is not just about credit information. These consoles will hold all kinds of information as well as in many cases Credit Card details. Specifically “(b) ensure that the file or report is protected, by such security safeguards as are reasonable in the circumstances, against loss, against unauthorised access, use, modification or disclosure”. There is no way that this can there is any reasonable case of security and as such a case could be made that many levels of data collection should be controlled. I would like to add that this goes beyond normal safeguards to allow the case where an option of “Feely handed over details” is to be allowed as a defence by the collecting companies. If we consider that I showed from past events that these details can be obtained, then a clear option to block access to all these data segments should be clearly documented and should initially be switched off on all levels, so that access must be specifically allowed. However, apart from the normal credit card option, these systems should allow for alternative forms of payment (like the prepaid credit vouchers as they are currently sold by Microsoft and Sony).

United Kingdom
As our good old Australian point of historical origin, the UK also embraces the Common Law, and as such the financial parts would fall into the laps of The Rt Hon George Osborne MP and The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP. I reckon with well over a trillion pounds in debt and the additional issues they had with Google and Amazon they might be interested in a group that would not be able to get away with this. Consider that the UK has 400% more people living on an island decently smaller then Australia, the amount of revenue that this affects would be interestingly more than the numbers Australia has to deal with.

In the UK, data privacy falls in the lap of Christopher Graham who is the Information Commissioner. His office keeps eye on many issues, including Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. Both might have issues with these new next gen consoles and the information they could be gathering. How complete has these checks been in regards to the privacy of UK citizens?

Netherlands
Even though the Netherlands is based on Civil law (not common Law), they have their own issues with deficits. In addition, a massive source of revenue in the past from a national icon called the Free Record Shop (which is now bankrupt and also sold games) is no more, so it is even more pressing to keep a balance of affairs as they lost to all kind of on-line traders, many not operating within the Netherlands. Even at only 0.5% the size of Australia, it has the same size of population and many of those play games. They too deal with deficits and several issues where people are just too intensely taxed, whilst loads of online revenue gets away from them. In this case it involves funds that Jeroen Dijsselbloem loses as Finance minister. A man who likes the Dutch treasury coffers to be filled a lot more then they currently are. This is the man we all know as the Chairmen of the Euro group. As such he could even make a case that this is an issue that floats far beyond the Dutch borders.

The issues involving their privacy is set in “Wet bescherming persoons gegevens” (translation: “Law to protect personal details”). The law came in effect on September 1^st 2001. Their Article 76 comes close to what we have in our privacy act as states in Section 18G (a). The question that rises again is on protection and security of these facts. We have learned in more than one occasion that the required level of security falls in the range of illusionary, hence again the question becomes, why allow it in the first place. (Did I oversimplify the issue here?)

In the Netherlands these issues seem to fall with the Justice department and as such it falls on the plate of Minister of Security and Justice Ivo Willem Opstelten. Another interesting fact is that his wife is Judge Mariette Opstelten-Dutilh. So these issues might make for an interesting conversation on more than one level. The second reason for adding the Netherlands in this regard is that their minister of Justice is also responsible for the coordination of counter-terrorism policy, which again gives thought to these data collection issues on another dimension. If these levels of collection enable an easier access to identity theft, then each of these members would need to take a stronger look at a danger they are trying to prevent on one side, and ignore them almost completely on the other side.

As mentioned earlier in this article. What Microsoft claims on their stated security measures comes from their ‘marketing and sales’ divisions. Their stated interest is never what we need it to be, do these politicians realise that?

Sweden
Sweden is one of the most liberal nations in the world, with a quality of life that is second to none. Civil law gets a new level of comprehension as you experience the politeness of the Swedish police officer (beyond the mass riot times we saw recently). What is interesting there is that it is regarded as one of the Nanny states (US expression), yet when we consider the Swedish Minister of Finance, Mr Anders Borg, we see a slightly different view. He is seen as the man who has been slowly dismantling the social democratic welfare state, giving it a more business like character. I think it is fair that he takes a look at this as well. Like the other nations, Sweden is dealing with unemployment rates. If we see business going the way it is on-line, whatever they have must be protected. In addition, Sweden like the UK has a sizeable segment on video games. Sweden has produced its share of games and is after the UK one of the larger producers in Europe. They have over 2 dozen developers, in a nation with a population less than half of either the Netherlands or Australia. So keeping that industry safe is in their interest, and personally, with the unacceptable steps currently under review, that industry could feel pressure.

When it comes to data matters you can see why I mentioned that if we take the previous mentioned issues. For Sweden there is the following statement in regards to data matters “Generally, it is prohibited to transfer personal data that are being processed to a country outside the EU/EEA that does not have an adequate level of protection for personal data, unless the data subject has explicitly consented to the transfer.” It is the ‘unless’ part that becomes interesting. So in these nations we have seen broadly similar, yet specifically different issues that are affected with personal data.

The Swedish data inspection board is run by Mr Hans-Olof Lindblom, Director General. Their public office takes into account the Personal Data Act (1998), the Data Act (1973) and the Credit Information Act (1973). It is important to note that these acts are at least 15 years old. There is decent question rising on technological issues that were not even an option until 5 years ago. So it stands to reason that there are concerns on issues when it involves security and cloud. Some parties have stated long before these consoles became an issue that the expressions ‘data cloud’ and ‘firm data security’ should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

In the end, this is not about just a pre-owned game. We seem to be embracing new hypes and new technologies without thinking through the danger we burden ourselves with. These new systems are about to set new levels of digital rights and new forms of data collection, where we become the marketing product on several levels. In addition, there is more and more moving towards some cloud we know not of how secure. In an age where identity theft can have a debilitating factor on us for a long time, serious questions must be asked to several companies and a non-marketing answer must be coming our way publicly, long in advance of any official hardware release. With their release dates now less than 26 weeks away, several parties on levels of government, commerce and Justice should be asking questions.

Perhaps they are, but apart from Microsoft Marketing we hear much spin and decidedly little final details. And what will Sony do?

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as Anders Borg, Christopher Graham, Ed Balls MP, Electronic Arts, gaming, George Osborne MP, Hans-Olof Lindblom, Ivo Willem Opstelten, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Joe Hockey, justice ministers, Mariette Opstelten-Dutilh, Microsoft, Peter Schaar, pre owned games, PS4, Sony, Wayne Swan, Xbox One

May 27, 2013 · 10:46

The Data Intelligence bill

The events that occurred in Woolwich have sparked more than just one debate. The new debate is involving the additional powers that Home Secretary May wants to hand to the intelligence branch. It involves a data bill that was vetoed by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. He stated that it was too much of an invasion of privacy.

Is he correct?

Initially I would side with that part. Yet, you cannot have it both ways. There is a plain and simple need to keep England’s citizens safe from radicalised attacks. The issue of Home grown terrorism had been an issue going back to Sir Jonathan Evans reign of MI-5. He was more than just a little concerned with outside influences on the British way of life. This now falls firmly on the shoulders of both Andrew Parker, who is well aware of the issues as well as the needed response and Sir Iain Robert Lobban of GCHQ. As this is Signal intelligence and as such it falls in his lap as the data would be needed for MI-5, MI-6 and some parts of local law enforcements.

I would think that part of this bill will start with Lord Carlile. His involvement in this goes back to the Terrorism Act of 2000. Current issues are ‘tainted’ by two reports and as such they both are important. First there is the National council of Civil Liberties that drafted a response to the definition of terrorism, which seems to have been the work of Gareth Crossman and Jago Russel. You should take a look at it (source: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy06/response-to-carlile-review-of-terrorism-definition.pdf). It is an interesting work, and important to read is how they see this all. Part of the weakness is the approach on page 3 where they state: “It is vital that the definition of ‘terrorism’ is drawn as tightly as possible“. It is a decent stance to have, yet in the light of fear against home grown/lone wolf terrorism it is actually counterproductive. Terrorism is a shifty acre of quicksand and the strict approach is not only going to fail, it will get the people involved stopping this drowned. Not a good thing me thinks!

I feel uncertain to the point 6 they make on page 5. Yes, they do state that it is outside of the scope of the document, and as such they only raise the comments made that Terrorism should be dealt with under Criminal law. Here is where I might be the dissenting voice. The law should cover all, I do believe in that, however, what part of law? We are dealing with a group that does not seem to be categorised as such. These people are not transgressing in a way where we approach a normal person, or even the average person. Whilst we approach these transgressors in one way or another, even when if possible their defence starts going into the Mental Health act we will see a case where the court is drawn into years of litigation and dealing with a case that as such should be seen as a non-combatant involved in hostile military actions against civilians with no allegiance to any nation and as such it becomes a mess where each case locks down the justice system more and more. Consider the American situation (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act). This comes from a special report by their Justice department stated in June 2005.

“This allowed the use of FISA information in a criminal case provided that the ‘primary purpose’ of the FISA surveillance or search was to collect foreign intelligence information rather than to conduct a criminal investigation or prosecution. The seminal court decision applying this standard to information collected in intelligence cases was issued in 1980. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). In this case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the government did not have to obtain a criminal warrant when ‘the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,’ and ‘the surveillance is conducted primarily for foreign intelligence purposes.’ Id. at 915. However, the court ruled that the government’s primary purpose in conducting an intelligence investigation could be called into question when prosecutors had begun to assemble a prosecution and had led or taken on a central role in the investigation.”

This shows that the narrowness of the scope would be the obstacle we should be trying to prevent. The issue is NOT our privacy at that point; it is all about them having access to go after the right people. This requires them to blanket us with collection of data. Even though the data is all collected, it will turn out that 99.9% might never be accessed. Having it is however essential for their success of stopping terrorist attacks. So when the Sky News UK reporter Stephen Douglas mentioned “are they playing politics with fear” then he is in my humble opinion incorrect. This data bill has been needed for a long time. It can even be safely speculated that MI-5 could have intervened with the Kenyan involved in the Woolwich murder at an earlier stage as more flags would have been raised. Their interview with him would have led to other questions, confirmations of danger. That seems to not have happened at this stage.

So from the civil liberty document we move to document cm7058 from June 2007 which holds “The Government Reply to the Report by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C. Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation The Definition of Terrorism“. (Source: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7058/7058.pdf). My issue is with point 5 on page 5. Idiosyncratic terrorism imitators should generally be dealt with under non-terrorism criminal law. This is the point that shows the need of the data bill. Especially when we consider Lone wolf or Home grown terrorists there will be the issue whether the person was a mental health wannabe, or a more intelligent individual being allowed a second go at harming groups of people, after civil rights protected him the first time.

So even if we want to give strength to both Nick Clegg and the National council of Civil Liberties. They are there speaking out to protect your rights. Yet, in that process, they are giving strength and freedom to terrorist attacks like the one in Woolwich (not intentionally). This issue is like a seesaw. These two viewpoints are utterly opposing and as we give power to one, we remove it from the other. The interesting part is that the information we surrender will not harm us unless we support terrorism. Should that not convince you then please remember that you have already given away your privacy to most market research and financial institution data centres. They only want your money, or in a product driven way bank you. The intelligence community wants to keep you safe. In my mind, there is no debate. The data bill is likely to come and should be there, if only to prevent a second Woolwich.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Andrew Parker, FISA, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Gareth Crossman, GCHQ, Jago Russel, Jonathan Evans, Lord Carlile, Lord Carlile of Berriew, MI-5, MI-6, Nick Clegg, politics, Sir Iain Robert Lobban, Sky News, Stephen Douglas, terrorism act 2000, terrorists, Theresa May, Truong Dinh Hung, Woolwich

May 24, 2013 · 22:42

You might soon be sold by the banks!

I have heard often, in many situations the ‘that is not how it works’ was stated. How it was all in my mind. No, this morning issues were not just confirmed, I reckon that things are even worse than you think they are.

You see, for the most I do not trust ‘Financial Institutions’. They came in a time when there was an abundance of all, when people, as they were turned away from banks, they were willing to take a ‘chance’. For one part, this is Capitalism at its best! (Or at least that is how it was in the beginning.) Now they have grown, more margins more abilities and as we saw them grow in many fields they gained perspectives the banks in their conservatives states did not.

So, whenever I can, I stay away from financial institution. The main reason, they do not have the muzzle to keep them in place when needed. You think this is strange? Well, read on and prepare for the rudest awakening in a long time.

In the Netherlands there is a company called Equens. Today they temporary abstained from a plan to sell on their financial information. Equens is a payment provider. It processes pass (credit cards, bank cards and so on) transactions. They do so all over Europe and they are not the smallest. With 15 BILLION transactions they own well over 10% of the market. The plan is indeed decently brilliant, but dangerous as hell. They almost pulled in the banks to take their transaction data to market. It would have been quite the revenue, but it is the most dangerous one you will ever personally experience, and the issue with ‘temporary’ means it remains a danger. The initial report on this matter drew too much criticism, even though RABO and SNS Nationalised were interested, they crawled back when certain legal issues rose. It had been raised by the Dutch consumer society and the Dutch political party Democrats 66. I feel certain that this delay is a temporary one, as the issues involving legalities might be resolved over time. This is exactly the issue with financial institutions. Banks have power, but as such they were limited in freedom of movement (as it should be). Their commercial corporate brother named ‘Financial institution’ does not have these strict limits, which gives many of us the dangers currently at play.

Even so, Equens did make the promise that the sold information could not be tracked to any individual. This is where they are (intentionally) wrong in my mind.

You see, this goes beyond their system (and that is how they ‘focussed’ their view. Let me show you how. You buy an item at your usual store. That store processes your payment. You remain anonymous. Yet, your usual store has given you a discount/loyalty pass. NOW there is a connection between the bank card and your personality. So, as Equens data is sold on and on and on, more information can be added as the shop cash register (and therefor their data) has your bank pass and your personal details in the form of a loyalty card. Two numbers that could be connected with the greatest of ease and these cash registers have been collecting numbers for years and years. Now the link of two numbers separates their claim of anonymity and total financial and personal classification.

So look at those facts, now check your wallet and look at those cards you have. Are any of them for the Cinema? A book store? A game store? A fashion store? Do you get mail to your home from any of them? You’ll likely have at least one, and with every addition, you will get classified more and quicker. Soon you are nothing more than a product number. This is the ultimate marketing move! Availability of products, per person, per location. This is not such a future event; this is about to happen to us all.

I reckon that whatever happens will happen fast, and not just in the EU. If Equens is so willing to make this leap with only +10% market share, then who are the bigger players? This is a mega million market and if the Netherlands with 19 million people are so desired, then what about the UK with 68 million? Consider the meeting Equens had and a document they presented in June 2011 (source: http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/files/payments_council/npp2011_-_consultation_docs/22.06.11_equens_se.pdf).

The statements like: “However, the single largest criticism of the NPP is that it lacks an overarching business vision on which to drive a coherent strategy that delivers the various elements of the Plan.”

So, the National Payment Plan was even more in need of a business vision? To consider those consequences we would need to look at Q42 of that document on page 14. Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is under scrutiny where it was stated that ”The adoption of SEPA standards and formats should be introduced as quickly as possible. Whilst this will impose a cost on Corporate UK, the benefits of these new standards will take some time to reach fruition if standards migration is done on a phased basis.” So what adoptions exactly, and as such, which ones are less documented but not prohibited? From an IT point of view ‘formats’ reads as changes to interact data on more levels more easily. Why? Costs on Corporate UK! When have they EVER been willing to accept costs without tenfold falling back into their laps? It is simple basic capitalism. I have nothing against it, yet the part where most others get sold is not in those papers, yet it is not prohibited either. Welcome to the open world of financial institutions where we are about to become their product. Even though Equens is now visible, I wonder where a big boy like Schlumberger (Axalto) is at this point, who has a sizeable share.

The NOS reported on their website (www.nos.nl) today that these moves are for now of the table. Quoted was “Aanleiding voor dit besluit is de maatschappelijke onrust die is ontstaan.” (translation: ‘reason for this decision is the social unease that rose‘). I think that they have business concerns which will not allow them to endanger their 10% market at present. Yet, if they thought of it, then so did the other players and as such the next step is only a matter of time, and I reckon that we do not have that much time left before we are part of a sold system.

From there our world of what we need will be transformed into our world as THEY see we need. A small change will become a world of difference for us all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Axalto, bank card, business, customer loyalty, D66, economy, Equens, Financial institutions, NOS, NPP, RABO, Schlumberger, SEPA, SNS, UK

May 21, 2013 · 00:54

Values of a debatable side

OK, it is 23:30 at the moment and I am finding out the hard way that life in a hospital as a patient can be different from your daily life in the corporate world with fluent internet and then some, go figure!
So when I initially listened last weekend to a few newscasts in regards to a team of devoted UK MP’s I was not completely on the ball. Yes, they were having a go at the dude from Google, but alas, it was not the price fight we might have seen when some have a go at Lawrence Ellison, and the MP’s go home crying like Charlie Brown after an encounter with Lucy.

So there they are, Amazon, Google and their margins of non-taxation. Those MP’s dressed like bankers and charging like Don Quixote.
It is almost like a new disney ‘fairy-tail’. The pot calling the kettle brokered. Is it not a little on the hypocritical side, that AFTER they bail out RBS, when RBS reports a 2 billion loss, that personal ‘acquaintances’ still go home with a bonus total of almost 400 million? That was not stopped was it?
But Amazon and Google, after they did everything legal (not unlike the bankers of a fat-cat persuasion), and used exactly those correct steps in their order processing that now certain MP’s cry Havoc and slip-up the dog of stores.

This situation does bring back memories of my previous blog where I accuse members of the EU thinking too local in certain cases, this tax front reads the same way. Now, if you think that I will advocate one version of taxation for the EU, then think again. That is just not realistic! That is like putting 22 toddlers in one room, asking them to all select the same piece of chocolate, good luck with that one!
Yet, the idea to streamline certain forms of taxation to ease businesses in an optional situation where web stores will have equal rules, rights and burdens is not that bad. Of course not all EU nations have the same powerful internet, so more issues will arise.

In the end, is it about web stores and taxations? Let’s face it, a political grilling that was senseless and pointless to begin with? And let us not forget, no legal transgressions seem to have been made (if I am incorrect, then this blog WILL be updated). It is also interesting that the chair person of the committee Margaret Hodge, and her family connection to Stemcor seems to be in the same class of fishing pond. How revealing! What was that about a pot and kettle I mentioned earlier? By the way a special thanks to Helia Ibrahimi of the Telegraph who had several of these facts before I did (4G in a hospital is not that realistic, hence my delays).

Yes, it seems that a elevated level of lesser taxation does exist, like an additional income support class for billionaires. Hoo-de-la-lay, as Prince John would say (Copyright: Disney).

So looking at these issues, and these facts, then what is this really about? Will this be the kick-off for a ‘simpler’ tax system? (like billionaires do not get enough deductibles as is). Is this about uniting into one tax system? The latter part would be a nice idea, however with many EU nations in desperate shape to get revenue, not realistic. There is also the slight humorous thought of PM Cameron calling Dublin asking them to do him a favour and not process Google’s non taxable issues there. What are the odds that Irish laughter will reach the shores of Sydney? #JustSaying

Make no mistake, there is more going on here. Do not be fooled to think that this is just visibility. The honourable Margaret Hodge for Barking is one clever cookie. She has been around for a long time and when it comes to the disciples of Machiavelli, she is up there with the league players, which beckons the thought what is this the start of?
The only part that comes to mind is that this is a two edged sword. On one side this is only partially about the tax lessening that Google, Amazon, a few others and the family firm (Stemcor) are enjoying. This might be in one part, a nice little jab to raise the topic of raised taxation during the G8. Consider the issues that the EU needs revenue, now consider that 1% of something remains better then nothing, and that plays nice to the Stemcor business family too, All these EU items play in her/labours favour. If David Cameron does nothing, he will look weak, any act by the PM will economically hit back and gives chance for an overwhelming victory for labour next election. The UKIP issues do not help much either, but at least in that part they are not on the side of labour.

Still, whatever pressure is applied to increase the billionaires tax bill, Westminster must be careful not to be too harsh with their ‘scare’ tactics. Scotland is only 725 km to the North and Stemcor already has an office there.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as David Cameron, G8, google, Helia Ibrahimi, Lawrence Ellison, Margaret Hodge, RBS, Scotland, Stemcor, taxes, The Telegraph

May 10, 2013 · 16:09

Got Milk?

This has been an interesting week for some. This news actually started last week where more and more visibility was given to the fact that shops were running low on baby milk. We are talking about the powder tins that are processed into yummiest milk that babies are supposed to like, love and make them grow healthy.

The UK articles and newscasts showed that shops had limited the baby milk limit to one tin per customer per day. France was already dealing with this issue for some time. The reasoning behind this was the fact that shoppers were buying them on mass to sell them on eBay for staggering profit margins. The interesting part now is that this group has grown into the Netherlands as well, and they now have an issue too.

There the story becomes slightly hilarious. This is what the Dutch Minister Ploumen of foreign trade had to say “Het is natuurlijk prachtig om te horen dat Nederlandse producten geliefd zijn in China, dat is goed voor de werkgelegenheid in ons land. Buitenlandse handel biedt binnenlandse banen. Maar daarentegen kan dit niet ten koste gaan van de Nederlandse moeders en vaders die tegen lege schappen aanlopen” [translation: “It is excellent to hear that Dutch products are desired in China, this is good for Dutch labour opportunities. However, this should not go at the expense of Dutch fathers and mothers who see the empty shelves“]. (Source: http://www.NOS.nl).

So, we have an issue that had been sweeping the market in general for several months. Which is interesting as Nutricia, the Dutch producer who has a world famous reputation for chocolate milk is one of them. They currently have a growing market with spiking needs in excess of 50%. In a time with low economy and overall downsized retails. The minister of foreign trade is talking about empty shelves. But I do agree that this is both a fact and an issue, but is it his?

This hilarious part is that when researching this I found that the Dutch laws have been focussing on different sides of import, especially grey import. This is however an export issue, and so far it seems that the Dutch trade is only outspoken (in a slightly complex way) when it comes to the export of medicines. I did find statements in regards to anti-dumping, that dumping is not an illegal act, which is a discussion for another day.

The interesting side is the lack (as seen at present) on the rules for export. As other nations all have their own rules for import, the export seems to be open to promote trade as much as possible, which makes perfect sense. So it seems that the Minister Ploumen speech of empty shelves is limited to this as there as limitations of export seems to be missing. (There are exceptions as there are clear rules for exporting weapons and medicine).

Except for the few who were quick enough to use the eBay option to sell these packages quickly, this rage of exports is set to people (especially Chinese), who buy these products and mail them to relatives and friends in China. All this based on the baby milk issues within China when their milk was contaminated with the deadly substance Melamine. This initial issue had been reported in 2008 and that had resulted in large numbers of sick baby’s with some fatalities. It is interesting that these levels of mistrust are still an issue now in 2013. Even though there was a call for censorship to prevent larger issues of emerging unrest, I did not find any clear evidence that new baby milk issues emerged, other than the still existing waves of lack of confidence in the local created products.

So considering the facts that these issues have been plaguing the EU since last October, there are two issues to consider.

The first is the question is why the producers did not raise quota needed to fill the shop shelves? It seems extremely unlikely that the producers over 3 nations cannot meet the additional amounts. As I never had to consider this food group, it took a little while to get into the brands. Interesting is that as part of the dozens of brands a sizeable amount refers to: Nestle, Nutricia, Nutripharm and Farleys. Yet, I am not aware of the processes and the amounts that can be produced. So consider that these are the EU’s big four, what is stopping them to increase production? I know that it is unlikely that we just increase the speed of the production line. This is depending on a lot more factors. It is however interesting that these big boys cannot meet demands. It is not certain whether they are working on 24 hour shift solutions, yet three nations, all plagued with employment rate issues and in times of a downsized economy the one product everybody wants, no one can get. So why are we concerned with export legislation at present? (at least in the Netherlands).

You see, this is all about the Chinese import issue. If they start stopping this import then they might be one step away from some serious civil war issues (as most people get REAL cranky when their children are being endangered). If they decide to stop this on quality reasoning, why are they doing this? Their own producers seemed to have endangered their own children. To their defence, at present this seems to be linked to low consumer confidence, not linked to any actual issues at present.

The second issue is about the future. I can agree that the Chinese would prefer joint-venture solutions, yet at present that solution seems unlikely to do anything short term considering the Chinese low confidence in their own products. I agree with any nation that it does not like to depend its future generation on an import issue. That solution reads like little Hans Brinker putting his finger in a dyke whilst 200 meters downwards the dyke is gone, it is very counter-productive. If we care about the population then the Chinese are much better up opening the borders for the next 6 months and avoid optional additional issues with some clever criminal repackaging high end used tins with low end materials. Releasing the pressured need of baby milk, and then get those 4 big boys (or any of them) across the borders, each signing up to address the issues that plagued the factories and get them back on-line with confidence levels that will get the Chinese population back to their local brands. Let us be fair, opening that market seems to be a win for all and basically no one loses there.

What are the additional issues?

To me it seems that export issues are less and less arranged, and I do not think that this is a bad thing. If over regulations hurts trade, then proper actions should be taken, and most nations have decent import regulations in place, so export issues are less likely.

For the UK this is a better arranged side as they are gifted with the UK Export Control Act 2002.

Here we see a few clear options. In S4(2)(b) we read that “(2) For this purpose ‘trade controls’, in relation to any goods, means the prohibition or regulation of their movement;” So this point makes it clear that export can be ‘stopped’ to some effect.

However (there is always a however) Section 1 speaks of Export controls. This states for S1(2) “For this purpose ‘export controls’, in relation to any goods, means the prohibition or regulation of their exportation from the United Kingdom or their shipment as stores.“. And in S4(4) we read that this is linked to S1, which seems to give individuals a clear pass. (Yay for individuality!)

So it seems that the UK companies have clear legislation (which might not be an issue), yet the Dutch and French legislation only seem to have stated rules and limitations when it concerns arms and medicine, beyond that if they were allowed to make it, it can basically be shipped anywhere.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as baby milk, China, Melamine, Ploumen, UK, UK Export Control Act 2002

May 6, 2013 · 15:59

Shalom Syria!

There have been several issues in the last two years that give reasoning to ponder our collective futures as we see issues flame over the Middle East. It has been clear in several ways that Israel is constantly under attack, it has been under attack pretty much after the state of Israel was founded.

So in a highly pressurised area, the Civil War in Syria was not the additional pressure anyone was waiting for. This civil war has now passed the two year mark. So, we can honestly say that this is a ‘grievance’ that goes high with the entire population of Syria (no matter which side they are on).

Yet, there are still other sides. At present President Bashar al-Assad has seen an expected short term issue into a long term consequence. Even if (however unlikely), he would be victorious against the opposition, there will be a massive amount of repairs to be done all over Syria. In addition, with the currently shown evidence, which gives us enough evidence that Syria employed methods of chemical warfare against its own citizens, there is every chance that nations of the League of Arab states will not invite him to the negotiation table as an equal any day soon. This means that whatever support he hopes to have needs to come from other ways and means.

So, what about Hezbollah?

They proclaimed their support for the Syrian state and President Bashar al-Assad. Here is where the plot became confusing for many. Hezbollah currently seen and should remain to be regarded as a terrorist organisation. Yet, their open support for a sovereign state is a valid question mark for many.

This is where the issue of yesterday and the issue last January exploded quite literally. Israel finds it utterly unacceptable that advanced missile systems are delivered to Hezbollah via Beirut. This is the reason Syrian got to watch a bright orange sky as a ‘research-building’ (as the Syrian government calls it) was turned into the main component of a snow globe.

Israel is quite right to be concerned with advanced weaponry seemingly given to Hezbollah. The note here is the ‘advanced’ part as Israel seems to remain eager to stay out of the internal struggle of Syria as much as possible. There is the side that the press at present seems to lack ‘illuminating’ to all.

No matter what the Syrian statement is, as they complained validly that they lost a building, yet no one upgraded it to a hotel as the rules of the Monopoly game states. The issue I have is that a convoy of weapons, not once, but twice would make its way to Beirut. Take into consideration the following report by Reuters last year. ( at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/us-lebanon-explosion-idUSBRE89I0N620121019)

So, slowly the question could become, is Israel not already in a war with ‘Syrian’ elements as such, considering that the new name of Lebanon might be “West Syria”, or what in the US might in future be known as West Side Syria. There had been issues all over the news in the last year that Syrian intelligence had the run of Lebanon. As such Israel’s strike makes even more sense. It also is given additional strength if we consider Reuters article at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/05/us-israel-lebanon-hezbollah-un-idUSBRE93311920130405

All this gives reason for worry. Should this escalate even further, an option that is at present unlikely but not impossible will change to “likely” if the Syrian government keeps on updating Hezbollah the way it currently seems. The consequence will seem far-fetched at present, yet uncomfortably logical.

Should the issues with Hezbollah/Syria escalate, then that would give Israel two new frontiers to worry about. First the people of Lebanon might enter their own moment of Civil war for the simple reason that one air-strike lit up the sky more brightly then the combined effort of an entire year of Syrian explosions. That and the fact that it’s citizens might even end up having to look at a levelled Beirut because Hezbollah violated UN Security council resolution 1701 for some time, as well as the issue that at present elements from Syrian Intelligence seems to be a ruling voice in Lebanon, might make the population angry enough to clean up their government.

These escalating issues will be a clear sign to Hamas to start their fireworks barrage (read S.C.U.D/Qassam/Fajr-5) on Israel. This will push Israel into a state of utter defence, which means that their attacks can no longer be proportionate. They would have little other option then to change both the West-Bank and Beirut into an ash pile. There are plenty of people claiming that Israel will not do this and how this should be resolved diplomatically. To them I say “Talk is cheap!” Syria crossed a red line according to the NATO Intelligence, yet at present nothing is done. Any talk is only a factor of delay. I do understand that the US is not happy, willing or able to just enter a new war zone. I am also not stating that they should consider it, yet if they do not, when (‘should’ is a better word) things escalate they will remain outside the zone discussing and not being able to direct the theatre of war, something they prefer as it will always be better to direct the game then just run with the other players.

For all who claim that THIS time (the Sarin evidence discussions) it is not a delaying tactic, I state “By whose standard?” Let me guess; only at some point AFTER missiles hit Tel Aviv, THEN they will agree to talk? Then there would be a suddenly (temporary) agreed seize fire? There is at present enough evidence for Israel to seize proportional responses and do whatever they can to secure the state of Israel.

For anyone thinking that this is an option Israel would never consider, and then consider that Lebanon is giving Hezbollah and Syrian Intelligence pretty much Carte Blanche in Beirut. Even though Lebanon does not currently have a dangerous striking force, and in addition, the Lebanese government has at present no intent of open hostile acts against Israel (as far as I know), then consider that when (not if) the Syrian establishment falls, a massive amount of military and intelligence personnel will move into Lebanon and Iran trying to escape prosecution from the people they prosecuted. As the victor of this encounter will be prosecuting (read hunting and lynching those who did the atrocities). I am not saying it did not happen on both sides, I am stating that the victorious side will end up giving blanket immunities to their people. Both Iran and Syria will be getting an added group of people happy to start open hostilities with Israel.

So a solution must be found. I personally believe it is not just about the Syrian Civil War. No matter what people shout, that ‘party’ is not going anywhere for many months after the civil war have been resolved. The issue on how Lebanon seems to have been compromised into a puppet state that is run by Terrorist and hostile Intelligence organisations seems to miss the news regularly, and that is a matter that has a much higher priority then people think, as that part has the ability to remain a destabilising factor long after the Civil War is done with. The reason should be obvious. Two groups that should reasonably be isolated, now end up having access to Banks, Media and a sizeable harbour. Two groups with too much access to all kinds of resources, both living with the premise that their values is based upon their ability to wage terrorist assaults on Israel.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as Beirut, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, politics, Syria, Tel Aviv

May 4, 2013 · 15:59

UKIP or U.K.I.P? (Ur Kiddin’ I Presume?)

First let me start by stating my ‘allegiance’. I for the most am a conservative in mind. I used to be Labour/Liberal Democrat in past, but like all people, over time my thoughts and ideas changed like they change with most people. And as most, we want to support the team that looks out for us, and is closest to our ideals. We often keep it in that order of importance.

The issues are not with the parties, they, for the most did nothing wrong to make me change my mind. They had priorities as any good party would have, and as they change I felt less with one and more with the other party.

So why, from Australia is this part on UKIP coming? Well, I grew up in Europe and I spend most of my life there. Perhaps at times I still miss being in London, but that would apply to anyone who has been to London. Only the dead do not miss London and even that might be debatable. So as I saw the news this morning on how UKIP made some staggering victories from the conservatives I started to ponder it all. So this is where I am at present.

What do most know about UKIP? We saw some people lash out against them as they lash out against most opponents they are worried about. Then there was (too) little from UKIP and of course the votes and those who flocked towards them in droves.

When you look online, there are heaps of reviews. The Australian wrote ‘Send in the UKIP Clowns’, ‘the anti-immigration UK independence party’ and a few other less than flattering headers.

So taking a look at their site at http://www.UKIP.org had several papers that could be read, downloaded and or printed. It seems that they have information that is ready for all. One of the quotes that was on page 2 of their manifesto was “On January 1st 2014, The UK will open its door to unlimited numbers of people from Romania and Bulgaria”.

In the current economic and financial climate that makes entire Europe suffer, this message would scare plenty of people in the UK. There is even a quote from Ed Miliband MP, leader of the labour party in there. Yes, there is a simple message. So, why am I interested?

From my view many Commonwealth nations are connected. Even if Australia has a strong mining community (a force our own PM seems to be happy to break into suffering little parts), we are connected with the UK. If your mother was in danger, would you NOT come to her rescue? I think that we will always come to the aid of England, even when they lack Cricket skills ;-).

The message from UKIP remains simple, yet life is not that simple, but it ought to be. This is why Mr Cameron is now in a situation where he has to pick up the pieces. I will go one step further, even if the press was not willing (or able) to make it. If the current standing is not rectified fast, the conservatives might find themselves in less than a minority position, they will end in a position that will take multiple government terms to rectify.

So let us take a look at these issues that gave strength to the UKIP.

Open immigration from Romania and Bulgaria. Open immigration is always an issue for any nation that is in a much better place than the nations where immigrants come from. Yet, these two are not in any good state, so if those people have a chance of a much better life they will come. Yet, in support, the Netherlands has been dealing with massive scaled rental allowance fraud from Bulgarian gangs. The Dutch information program ‘Brandpunt’ (= flashpoint) even showed how organised bus trips from Bulgaria exist, just to start this method of fraud. One website even mentioned “Bulgaarse televise zendt cursussen ‘Hoe misbruik te maken van het Nederlandse systeem'” (=Bulgarian television transmits courses on ‘how to abuse the Dutch system’).

In the current climate this is what the UK might have to look forward to in one way or another. So, when we see UKIP announcing that they want to get out of the EU in the current climate, many people listen.

Is UKIP correct? This is where my shoes become a little tight for comfort. Life and politics are not that simple. No matter how much we would like it to be, the UK is currently in a 1 trillion deficit issue. It needs an increased economy and it needs export to keep it all real, yet the prospect of losing a 0.3% economical increase (achieved by the conservatives) is not likely to survive after the open border policy starts next January. There is another reality that does not bode well for Mr Cameron either. Many Nations in Europe have no real grip on their budgets at present. Germany seems to be the only one on par for now. Even the UK has a problem, but that is an UK issue. As they remain in the EU, they also inherit the issues of Italy, Greece, Spain and Cyprus. Each of these 4 are now loudly protesting in a state of anti-Austerity and as such, should their governments be overturned, then the chance of them cleaning up their own mess is not likely to happen any day soon. UKIP wants to be away from the EU when that happens. The reality is that the brunt of those blows would push the Netherlands, Belgium and France on their financial knees as well. Then what?

So even though Mr Cameron is right that life is complex, the appeal that Nigel Farage wants to do an Alexander the Great and cut the Gordian knot is not that far-fetched and is starting to appeal to a much wider audience. There is even additional support as the Netherlands did not get their budget in order and now gets a one year extension. In addition, their own labour party is entering a state of possible disarray as its members oppose a plan earlier approved in a coalition deal with the VVD (Dutch Liberal party). In this situation to get certain deals, the Dutch Labour party had to accept the standing that the Dutch Liberals want a harsher expulsion policy for illegal and criminal immigrants. To make this coalition work Labour had to go along with this to get some of their own agenda points to work. Now the party members want to move away from the Liberal stance on immigration (as the Labour mindset was never on par with that) and MP Samson was unwilling to do this. He had a standing agreement and he wants to keep his word. He also warned that pushing this would come at a cost for labour. Labour would have to hand over something else and even in the short run this would be likely an expensive change for the Labour agenda. So even though this is currently being talked about, it is clear that a crises point could come. In addition, there is no indication that the Dutch economy is changing for the better. There was mention of 0.6% of shrinking of the Dutch economy. In case you were wondering why this issue matters, it does! (Read on to learn why)
You see, if the Dutch economy gets any worse it will soon go towards a situation France and Italy are in (with a lot less deficit). Consider these nations nearly all with an overall average unemployment rate of 12.1%. These people will seek solutions and are very willing to cross borders for a better option. So, the fear that UKIP propagates is a real one.

In addition, the Gordian knot will have several benefits in these regards, but what is the downfall? There is the reality that the response from the Eurozone might lean towards a preference choice in business partners and removing the UK from the top of that list as/if they move out of the EU. It comes with the ‘we take care of our own and ours first’ taking the UK out of that equation. That is a reality to face too.

Does one outweigh the other? I feel certain that UKIP made no real investigation into that part at present. The question becomes what is done after they get the votes, and when they grow large(r), will they be able to provide not just ‘answers’ but also come up with solutions? The latter might be an issue as Nigel Farage stated on Sky News on May 3rd that a reshuffle was needed as they grew more than anticipated. That statement is fair enough when we see that thus far they gained 139 seats. It is a massive victory indeed.

Yet if there is another side then it can be found in their manifesto on page 4.

Protecting the greenbelt – opposing wind farms and HS2.

If the UK is to move forward then a proper energy policy is needed. They could consider more nuclear power, yet in the end, alternative fuel will be the future. Considering that the UK gets more wind daily then an average flying jet turbine, wind farms need to remain an option. In addition, if the UK will opt out of the EU, things will get more expensive in the short run, perhaps in the long run too. A strong energy policy would be paramount to keep the cost for the average citizen down and moving away from wind farms as an option seems less like a good idea.

Next on the list are 4 of the points mentioned.

Tax should be as low as possible.
Cracking down on crime and anti-social behaviour.
More police on the streets.
Cutting council executives and managers, not front-line services.

These issues are nice to hear, just like the quote we see in a fortune cookie. The tax statement is nice, but will it change? As ‘low as possible’ is just like ‘as soon as possible’, if the second one could mean ‘never’ then the first one could remain ‘too high’. There is actually more to this. Cracking down on crime is something the police have always done. Could more be done? Sure! There is however the issue that a budget needs to be kept and the UK has its own Austerity measures to consider as the 1 trillion deficits is not going away any day soon. This is where the third statement comes. Sure more police on the street sounds nice, but there is an infrastructure. Adding to the police force is nice, but with what money? The police forces have been bled dry and cut to ‘too little’ and not only in the UK. So if they tamper with the infrastructure to keep the promise of more police in the street the result is likely to be counter-productive down the line, then what will UKIP do?

So you see, they talk to the public, and tell them what to hear, but will it solve anything? This part is the debatable one. Yet, down the line, we must admit to govern one must be in office, and they did get into the office and now they must prove it.

I will not join the queue where they are labelled as fruit cakes and such. Mr Cameron is right that they will become a party to be reckoned with. The interesting part is how this will play out. The old duo Clegg-Miliband is now a lot less likely to survive, that part Mr Nigel Farage did achieve. What will Labour do next is the question. They are still the biggest for now. If they are to survive then they must align. It is unlikely they will find themselves with the Tories, yet it is either that, or their new option UKIP.

And here is where we see exactly the issue that Dutch Labour and Liberals are having (PVDA/VVD). What items are given and what are taken and what happens when the MP’s strike deals their constituents will not agree with? A British political sciences student in the late 90’s once told me “Coalition cabinets are the most entertaining, volatile and corrupt forms of governments”. I thought that his point of view made a lot of sense. The UK is about to join those ranks as they need to form coalitions at both sides of the isles. Will it be about the people or the MP’s and their futures? Time will tell but there is clarity in no uncertain terms. Those who did not give clear explanations of the why (as it was too complex) are now in a state where they must redraw lines and re-educate the masses as they figure out what to do next to get their seats back.

So the title ‘You’re Kidding I presume?’ Is very correct, yet who is stating that line, and whom are they stating it to is left in the open as both sides could claim that title and both side should be able to answer it.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as Conservatives, current-events, David Cameron, Diederik Samson, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, politics, PVDA, UKIP, VVD

Category Archives: Politics

Recent Posts

Archives