Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be | Journey to the Justice Brennan award

October 16, 2014 · 10:06

Views from an audience

This is a great day! Today I got confronted with John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) having a go at Russell Brand. I grew up in the age of Rotten, so the few times he speaks out, I will definitely listen. So seeing Mr Lydon speak out against Mr Brand and the politics of today, you are in for a treat (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2014/oct/15/john-lydon-russell-brand-revolution-video). His quote to the working class is “get smart, read as much as you can and find out who’s using you!“, a better statement regarding politics has not been made in 2014!

He was also outspoken against Ukip, whom he referred to as ‘You Kip!’ (So whether he refers to them as a herd following untanned pieces of hide, you the person asleep or a useless piece of weight (1000Lbs), it could even be all of the above!

Watching the interview was great fun, not just because I saw Johnny Rotten, but because the man is sharper then a razor, he sees anarchy in one way, me I always saw it a little different, but his view is great none the less. At the end he gives us this jewel “If you don’t contribute, or in some way try to reshape the society around you, you will have no effect and therefor become ignored, condemned“. He ends up seeing Russell Brand as a lifestyle of cardboard boxes by the river, making the others homeless whilst he preaches from a mansion. It is a strong view, but how did this get started? We need to take a look at the other side of that table.

I have seen Russel primarily as a comedian, yet his show trying to imbue ‘social awareness’ with his dormant style of subtlety tended to have an effect on me. He was at times a little too loud for me, but he did make me want to listen to it a little more, which means that there is something in what he claims or proclaims at times.

So what is this about?

Well, Russel Brand has been promoting his book (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/oct/15/russell-brand-occupy-wall-street-protesters-video) and as he occupies Wall Street we see a person who is trying to say as much as he can as quickly as he can, but is this wrong? Russel states: “creating social enterprises that are not for profit and represent people“. This is nice, to create a book not for profit, yet the man is already wealthy, so does that influence things?

Here my view personally skews a little. We see how Bill Gates is pouring millions into all kinds of philanthropy and social programs. Yet, we seem to forget how he got there! It did start with an idea that caught on, yet over time, the use of monopoly approaches to prevent growth and stop innovation has been on his record too. Yet, if we paint with a large brush we tend to not see the details of the events, which is ultimately dangerous. This latter part becomes visible when we look at the 2001 Cartel charge against Microsoft when we see the Microsoft v Palm issues rise. In the Dutch Newspaper we see “In advertenties prijst Microsoft de kracht aan van organisers die van zijn besturingssoftware zijn voorzien. ‘Kan uw Palm dit?’, wordt de lezer gevraagd. Die lezer kan alleen in de kleine lettertjes onderaan de advertentie lezen dat de Microsoft-organiser alleen tot de kunststukjes in staat is dankzij extra voorzieningen. De handhelds van Palm beschikken daar standaard over“ [translated] “in the advertisement Microsoft praises the power of their organiser using Microsoft operating systems. ‘Can your Palm do this?’ is asked of the reader. Only in the small print at the bottom that Microsoft can only do this with additional accessories, whilst the Palm can do these things in a standard configuration“.

Here we see not the works of Cartel, but the use of quality advertising. The fact that this is brought in this way gives in my view weakness to the papers, as they could have shown in clear detail what Palm vs. Microsoft achieves in a tech article. This is not what I regard to Cartel acts. When I spoke out against the monopoly acts of Microsoft, I referred to their acts versus Netscape with the first browser war. There we saw clear Microsoft monopoly in action, Netscape lost and would become the foundation of Firefox, which is still around today. All that happened in the age of Gates!

So is Brand the new Internet Explorer? No, he is not, but as Johnny Lydon shows us, it could be stated that Russel Brand is going around it the wrong way and as such will cause more harm than good. Can I agree? He speaks a few things that seem to make sense to us all, but does that give him more strength in his convictions? It might on a personal level, yet it also comes fraught with dangers. I agree with Johnny Lydon 199.5%. This makes sense if we consider the Dutch proverb ‘A warned man counts as two‘, or ‘Warned is forearmed‘, which now gives me an unweighted power of 200%. Johnny states the reasons, as I quoted quite clearly, find out who is using you least, see if you can live with that (what does the politician do that helps you) and if not, go for his opponent. That seems to be clear and makes a good call. When we see Russel Brand in BBC Newsnight (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk), we see a view it is hard to agree with, but Russell does make one point, the current system is NOT working. As we see governments enabling big business, leaving more and more issues out of bounds and as they are less about budgets and more about debt driven spending, we see that the new powerbase is not of votes, but by those who holds debt markers, yet not voting seems to be a radical (a train Johnny Rotten knows), yet non workable solution.

You see, in my view, as I have stated it before, when the budgets collapses, and the debt are accounted away (likely not by Pricewaterhouse Coopers), when as a result currency collapses, the new currency will be in hands of the owners of the Intellectual Properties, which currency has but one master, the company that holds the IP and it subjugates all others to these services. And consider that IP is for 99% in hands of non-governments. Yet at times Russell does make good points, which makes his approach so appealing, yet he seems to forget that he is now in a largely comfortable life with a large bank account. Jeremy Paxman shows a good deal too, he is on Russell’s case without letting up, it is quite the interview. So even though facetiousness is funny (at times) as Russell correctly points out, he missed the point, one massive point as I see it, not once did he call for accountability of large business and politicians. There is a second part where Russell loses out. I think in the end, these cases are an interesting topic. Yet, does a more radical solution work? Russell does show vigour as he brings his case, yet it is the pragmatic view of Johnny Lydon that makes Russell lose out. I reckon that Jeremy Paxman had Russell figured out after 10 seconds, you see, the speed Russell talks at is so high that not unlike the passing Ferrari, we see something gorgeous and we desire it, but then when it strolls by, we notice the seats to be not comfortable, no extra’s and then we see the price tag. Russell is the same, we see him fly by with a 150 words a second dictionary and the words we hear seem to make sense, yet when he slows down and we take the words in the proper speed, we see the issues that Russell is indeed very intelligent but his view is not an effective one, his revolution (or revelution) makes sense, but it requires the machine he opposes and that cannot be avoided, no amount of intelligence will ever change that.

So I would take sides with Johnny Lydon, yet there is no denying that Russell Brand offers an appealing view, but there is no current way that his view can work, even though his views are whacky, they are stated in a very passionate way. There is one guarantee that I can give, if Russell Brand ever gets elected to parliament, there will not be a sleepy person in the entire House of Commons, which would be a unique event to say the least.

If there is one part that is in favour of Russell Brand is that although the pragmatic approach of Johnny Lydon is pragmatic, I give one additional marker to Russell, because the current system is not working, yet I feel that in the end that unless the system changes, we are all pretty much screwed (Johnny Rotten would have used the ‘F’ word). My opposing view is that I believe that the system can be improved if we are not just a nation of Laws, but also a nation of accountability, that last word is the one that will give us either an improvement, or the exploiters will leave and we can put people in place that will improve our world, yet this path of change will not go fast.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as BBC Newsnight, Bill Gates, Jeremy Paxman, John Lydon, Johnny Rotten, Microsoft, Palm, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Russel Brand, Russell Brand, the Guardian

October 13, 2014 · 21:05

A matter of Jurisprudence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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

October 12, 2014 · 23:49

How the press became redundant

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

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

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

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

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

So how about the following questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should be more fun to wait, I reckon!

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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

October 11, 2014 · 12:02

Intentionally not that bright?

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

I tend to not give any!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

October 10, 2014 · 09:54

Billion dollar blame

Some do it quick, some do it with conviction, some take a life time and some don’t experience it at all. You might want to guess on what naughtiness I am talking about. It is simple negative profit in a firm. Some seem clear, some are to be expected and some are just plain ignorant.

We could rephrase them as the alphabet, like A is for Airline that’s lost in the queue; B is for banks, who lost more than a few. But then, that nursery rhyme would get boring real quick. The issue is not Tesco, not as we read in Bloomberg: ‘Bank of America Lost $2.7 Billion in a Maze of Accounting‘, it is simple overreaching. First the car industry, now the mobile industry is getting hammered. It would be fine to just blame Apple, who does have a stake in this, but in the end the true culprit is what I call ‘lack of vision‘.

Sony is downgrading its profits to far below zero. It is projecting a loss of 2,140,000,000 at the end of the current financial year. So we are talking about a loss so big, I personally believe is that those ‘idea-illogicals’ are still with their heads in the pre-recession era, they keep on believing that the old ways still work. Guess what! That time is gone, the financial institutions and banks changed that game forever.

The electronics empire initially forecast a $466 million net loss by the end of the current financial year, but has now informed investors that the projected loss has been revised to $2.14 billion. That is the budget for a small nation, so how is Sony still around? Well, that is not about that part of the equation, but it is an interesting question to consider for the future. The biggest issue is with their mobiles and we should wonder how they are currently surviving. I have nothing against Sony mobiles, I have had Nokia mobiles, I have Sony mobiles and mobiles from Ericsson and currently I use a Motorola. The entire mobile market is plummeting, Apple is doing fine, but overall they are likely to see a peaking of profits too.

Why?

Well, like those in the car industry, the people behind them are just not too clued in. They listen to ‘experts’, ‘analysts’ and from there they think that they comprehend their customers. They get market research, get 1000-2000 responses, weigh the hell out of the data and they consider that they have the knowledge.

Guess what, it does not work that way!

True investigation takes more, takes longer and takes actual preparation. Some half-baked set-up, which is quickly designed on Monday, live on Tuesday, data collected up to Thursday and reporting on Friday can work for some parts to get a general idea, but in the end, you will not get the ACTUAL wisdom you need. And guess what, it is not just Sony doing this; there are a few other larger players. Apple, Alcatel, BenQ, HTC, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Siemens and Sony Ericsson et all. All of them have several models; most of them are not that cheap.

To this I add two facts. The first one is the economy. It has been 10 years when the 2004 crash came, that hit many people, then the 2008 crash that turned a massive amount of people over the brink of poverty. In that decade the consumer lost close to 21% of purchasing powers. In that decade, the bulk of all people lost a job, or was retrenched at least once, was forced to live on a frozen income, whilst prices of food and housing kept rising and many are not dealing with their debt, so that part is also hanging round their necks as an anchor. The consumer markets ignored that part and now they see the fallout, a fallout that could have been clear to them for at least 3 years, so the writing is not just on the wall, it is a massive neon billboard that was ignored by those who should not have done this (at http://www.cnet.com/au/news/sony-forecasts-2-1-billion-loss-this-year-due-to-its-smartphone-business/)

There is additional ‘evidence’, which is seen here in the quote “The Company blamed the ‘competitive environment of the mobile business.’ Sony has been hammered by competition and an inability to find distributors in key markets such as the US“, I consider that to be a statement of falsehood. Why?

Well, that is always the real question. Consider the list I gave earlier. Siemens has lost a large share, Ericsson lost it as it united with Sony (the company in question), Alcatel was never the largest party in this and neither is Siemens. Huawei is relatively new and several smaller ones do not make the list any more (like NEC), so overall Sony should have consolidated its visibility, but it did not and neither did Nokia. Apple, Samsung and HTC grew, yet overall Sony should not have lost THAT amount, which means that there is more. I blame the over flooding and iterative consumer model as one reason, such a model cannot be sustained if you cannot grow the customer base and that part is currently diminishing and will keep on diminishing for another 2 years. We can no longer afford a new mobile or car every year, in all honesty, we never could, but that part is mainly the result from the pushed idea of ‘ego’ and peer pressure.

The second quote that gives the ‘frying pan’ and ‘the fire’ expression is: “While its Xperia Z3 flagship is making its way into the US through T-Mobile“, many consumers have had enough of being held over a barrel by telecom providers, the ‘new’ mobile is less and less an incentive to hold on to a solution, that side only works for business customers and they too are shopping in the margins. The final quote is “companies such as Google and Microsoft are laying out plans to broaden their reach into the emerging markets with more affordable smartphones“, that group is now targeting the ACTUAL consumers that are available. Huawei had an advantage there, but they are quickly losing that advantage as they emulate Samsung and HTC more and more.

You see, in this day and age, mobile makers have been pressing the ‘exclusivity’ option just a little too long and now the towers break down. You do not have to believe it, but not unlike the car industry, we do not need 7 models with 22 configurations. That image is created by advertisers, finding people telling you that ‘choice’ is all about ‘individuality’ whilst they try to sell that same package to millions; it is a fake concept as I see it. Yes, we want some choice, but the consumer driven industry took that way over the top. That same issue we have seen in mobiles for some time now and the bigger players, coming with half a dozen models are now finding that they are selling ‘hot’ cakes from a fridge in a place where there is no electricity. So why the ridiculous amounts of ‘add-ons’?

Apple avoided most of the issues by having one phone in 3-4 options, where memory was the choice. We do not need 8-12 models, having one phone, which does most, would suffice. Then we get the issue with price, smaller models cost some, or need a ‘contract’, in my eyes it is an interaction of pimping and harlotry for customers, but who is who is not clear to the consumer. Consider that many do not have $800 for a phone, yes we get options for cheaper, but many providers offer a lot less at that point, whilst a generic cheaper phone would be the solution to many, brands are ego pushing the more expensive models at any given opportunity. Although Huawei seemed to have nailed the market, they seem to slowly start making the same error the others are making. Consider that Huawei offered a 4G phone for less than half the price (unlocked and free of contract) than many other providers, so why would we pay twice the price?

Let’s not forget that many providers are no longer delivering a reliable mobile. If it has android than it is likely that the phone is forcing Google search down our throats, whilst forcing people to store all data on a Google account, so that they can copy the data. Apparently there is a way to switch that off, but the result is implied to be so disgustingly customer unfriendly, that we are starting to wonder whether criminal charges are in order. Now, my Motorola suddenly got ‘enhanced’ buttons at the bottom, where it seems that there is a software overlaid button that FORCES me to Google search. How was that MY choice?

So, in the age of data, the market will soon belong to the mobile maker that will respect the customer and BY DEFAULT, let the person choose what they want to do with their data, photos and other smart phone parts. This is all linked, because where confidence dwindles, people are less likely to choose a smart phone and more likely to go back to the old days of the Nokia 1100 (with silver LCD screen, offering voice and SMS only, oh and it avoided bank security for a little while).

It is my firm believe that if big boys like Sony, Nokia and others want to turn their market around, they will need to take time to ACTUALLY learn their customers’ needs and not force corporate choice as customer wishes down the throats of these consumers. For example, instead of 19 Nokia Lumia models make 4 with one extra landscape option. If you only need 5 models, you can simplify the process, down production costs, distribution complications and get a better return. It is just a crazy thought, but what do I know. I thought that the Lumia was gorgeous, but I am not paying $935 for a phone, not in this age of theft and pickpockets, especially as phone insurances are getting less and less affordable. Sony should consider that same idea. Do you think Apple was lazy? 2 phone models, each with three memory options, which means two models each with three memory chip options. NO! Apple foresaw the complicated BS that others face and as such they have more than a small corner in the market. This is odd as the main component for a phone is its battery and Sony has always had superior battery technology, so Sony should have been the number one choice, but alas, that is not the case, so why do we see a contender with a superior key part run a market at minus 2000 million? Beats me, but someone is clearly asleep at the wheel.

Of course, I admit that I am oversimplifying the entire issue, but am I so wrong? I do not think so. I will admit that I missed a few issues in this, but as Sony is at minus a lot and others have a dwindling market, I feel that I am onto something. I am also certain that people have had enough of data collection and these mobile players to use their consumers as off the books revenue piggy banks, the first one to change the wheel on that process might end up owning the market. For those who would ‘ignore’ that path, remember that no matter how ‘valuable’ that data seems to be, once the customers walk away, you end up without data and without people using your product. Sony has the option to bounce back, but that window of opportunity is small and quickly getting smaller as Google and Microsoft are tapping into their own worlds. Sony might have not have that many options left and they forgot the one lesson Miyamoto Musashi instilled upon them almost 450 years ago: “If you do not control the enemy, the enemy will control you”, they forgot this lesson as well as the fact that ego is as much an enemy as an actual opponent, especially as ego is not regarded as an enemy until it strikes after which it gets named Hinan!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

Tagged as Alcatel, Apple, BenQ, bloomberg, CNET, go rin no sho, google, HTC, Huawei, Microsoft, Miyamoto Musashi, Mobiles, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Siemens, Sony, Sony Ericsson, T-Mobile, Xperia Z3

October 9, 2014 · 06:44

The murder of innocence

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

Welcome to Canada!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally there is the following:

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

We now get a few more issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

October 5, 2014 · 22:41

The cost of doing Business

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

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

How is it relevant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

October 3, 2014 · 22:09

The orchestration has engaged

It is nice when the world falls apart, when you look at the abyss in front of you softly stating: ‘It cannot get any worse!’, then you feel a foot pressing against the lower spine of your back as you lose your balance and fall down. The last thing you hear is ‘Guess again!’

This is how certain news events felt the last few days. I am not referring to the McCain family, who states that the press has not learned anything, post-Leveson. Was anyone surprised?

My issue is with Andy Street at the John Lewis department store (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/03/john-lewis-boss-andy-street-says-france-finished). In light of Tesco, I wonder what drives this person. Yes, we all know that John Lewis is upper class shopping, yet is that reason for whatever you think? Apart from your freedom of speech, which I will not hinder, my question becomes, in light of your remark “He told the gathering of entrepreneurs that the award was “made of plastic and is frankly revolting”“, so not only are you a snob, the element grace is just not within you. Fair enough! Yet, consider that as you got recognised with an award, you should consider the 3 G’s, “Be Gracious, Be grateful, Get off!” (Thanks Paul Hogan for that jewel!)

I am all for freedom of speech, but I am also in favour of accountability. So when I read this: “Street advised his audience: “If you’ve got investments in French businesses, get them out quickly.” The eurozone’s second largest economy is struggling for growth under President François Hollande and the country’s finance minister admitted last month that it will overshoot the EU’s 3% budget deficit target this year. The French economy has been hampered by low growth and poor tax receipts in recent years“, I wonder how often Mr Street got hit with the silly stick in the hours before he spoke these words.

The second issue I see is also from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/02/warren-buffet-tesco-huge-mistake), this is an entirely different matter. We all make mistakes, so when a billionaire admits to this with the headline ‘Warren Buffett: ‘Tesco was a huge mistake’‘, it is not that big a deal initially, but then I went to think it through. Why is there such a massive overreaction in regards to Tesco? Yes, the profit was overstated; however, Tesco made over ONE BILLION! Can we please wake up now? In a year where most nations are doing worse than zero per cent, in a time when the straps are on so that we recheck every dime we spend. Tesco made over a Billion. Yes, I saw the statements ‘too big to fail‘, but in this instance I do not agree. In the case of the Dutch SNS Reaal, that place LOST a Billion, Tesco MADE a billion, so can we please wake up and not overreact?

So, when the response comes, ‘Well Lawrence, you seem to be overreacting here a little above average’, my response would be ‘darn right!’

You see, the initial events, of Blackrock moving out, whilst this is a drop on a plate, is what I personally see as a form of orchestration, a few big wigs who seem to be hoping on massive write offs for Tesco. There is something so darkly unethical about such actions, that these greed driven profiteers would endanger the incomes of tens of thousands just to get a nice dividend. This is what it looks like, am I right?

That remains to be seen, but overall the fight is not done yet. Tesco is not sitting still and the new Tablet as it launched just now could be another incentive, especially if we consider where Tesco could also be active. If this is the budget option, with Tesco Mobile in the Netherlands, This gem could find many happy homes during the Dutch Sain Nicholas feast (which is on December 5th), in additional to the Christmas celebrations, as many Dutch do both instances. Tesco is not done by a long shot and the activities that we see give me the impression that several actions do not seem to be about ‘cutting losses’, but as stated on many occasions that I am not an economist.

So, when I see this article http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/billionaire-mike-ashley-bets-on-tesco-bounce-back-30616710.html, where Mike Ashley, who owns Newcastle United takes a 43 million pound share believing that Tesco Shares will bounce back, I say “well done Mate!”, two thumbs up for this man. Now, let’s be honest, as this man seems to be a millionaire a thousand times over, 43 million will not seem like a big dent in his wallet, but the fact that this man is willing to enter more cash then I will ever make (even if I grow to the ripe old age of 14645), the entered amount will boggle my mind for some time to come.

This is one of the two parts where disbelieve is still on the front of my mind. Let’s be clear, I get the entire write off, loss of share value, yet the actual occurrence, especially with a billion in profits is too strong to be just a jittery action from the market. The fact that Blackrock moved out to this extent is still an issue. It left me with two options, either they know something Dave Lewis has not been told yet, or they wanted a curve so that they can make a sweet deal down the track. Let’s not forget that the value write off is just on paper, it is like a virtual event. Blackrock did not hand over these billions in gold or actual cash; we are seeing the fallout of virtual value (as I see it). And this all gets me to the final quote, which was also in the Warren Buffet article and had been mentioned in earlier articles. “UK fund manager Neil Woodford – who decided to sell his stake in Tesco in 2012 after its first profit warning – said last week it could be a long time before any of the British supermarkets became good investment prospects again“. Why?

You see, if he sold his shares earlier, fair enough. Yes, we see that Sainsbury is lowering expectations and shares have fallen there too. I think that all supermarkets will have to change their entire approach. We see that places like Aldi and Lidl are growing, especially in Australia where Aldi is now more and more a common sight, yet over here Woolworths and Coles remain. The same applies to England, in the end people need food, so these places will remain locations where food is bought and yes, as Tesco mobile remains competitive, people will come for that options too. All that is a given, so why such a massive overreaction?

This is at the heart of my foundation for suspected orchestration. If you are in the UK, then take a look at the papers and the degree that they are looking at Pricewaterhouse Coopers. They did the auditing for Tesco, so why is not every reporter looking at PwC and seeing what links might be there, which is not an accusation, but consider all the redigesting we see on several papers, they all mention PwC in a casual way, when they have been auditing Tesco for some time. Only the Times (at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/banking/article4214689.ece) had done so, yet the full article is not available to me as I am not a subscriber (one of the reasons why I stick to the Guardian).

There are two more quotes the first is “Shorting Tesco has been a profitable bet” and “Traders gamble on falling share prices by borrowing equities from other investors and selling them in the hope of later buying them back cheaper – known as shorting” The latter quote comes from http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2772107/Dont-shred-thing-new-Tesco-chief-warns-staff.html, so it is a way to make money, even though it seems unethical, the act is not, but one could call it questionable. This is the one moment where I need to ask the one question in regards to the given scenario. Let me first add the following quote “Lewis’s ‘no shredding’ order will be seen as a sign that he is determined to get to the bottom of the problem. It also indicates that the group fears the errors – whether or not deliberate – may extend deep into the company“, as well as “Cantor Fitzgerald analyst Mike Dennis said: ‘A discrepancy of this size suggests this is not just the behaviour of a few individuals, but behaviour instilled by the senior management team“, which is where I was all along. Is this the case and if that part was known to 1-2 insiders, could this be the reason for certain action? What if Blackrock dumped its part to cause a stronger downfall, so that they can buy it again later with a much more interesting profit curve, which makes up for a lot more than the small loss they had, what happens then?

All valid questions, I just wonder if those who have actual answers are willing to give them, because it looks like a slippery slope of massive proportions. As this happens to the one place that feeds a nation, how will the people react should evidence of intentional tampering ever be shown?

Then how angry will the people get?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Aldi, Andy Street, Blackrock, Cantor Fitzgerald, Coles, Dave Lewis, John Lewis, Leveson, McCain, Mike Ashley, Mike Dennis, Neil Woodford, Newcastle United, Paul Hogan, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, PwC, SNS Reaal, Tesco, Tesco Mobile, the Guardian, The Times, Warren Buffett, Woolworths

October 3, 2014 · 11:38

Selling Israel

The papers are having another go at selling another version of an idea that has been said so often that I worry that those going towards it are dim or desperate, I honestly cannot tell which of the two they are. Now, before we continue let me frank. I have nothing against Iranians, several were in University with me, I met some in Sweden and in Europe, but these Iranians are the ones who left, they wanted a happy future, a future Iran could not offer. There is the issue, the Iran we seem to see are those who do not want to be in Iran. So why are those able to change, are doing so whilst flushing the futures of many whilst they enjoy the age of fornication. This is at the premise when we look at the Guardian Article ‘Iran nuclear talks: why Tehran must be brought in from the cold’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/nuclear-talks-why-tehran-must-come-in-from-cold). Here lies the heart of the problem in several ways. You see, it was all easy and clear in the time that Ahmadinejad was in power, we could smell crazy 25000 miles away. Now we have an issue we haven’t had before, you see, now that President Rouhani is in office things are changing. President Rouhani is by all standards, as far as I have been able to tell a decent person, he is a moderate, what would be seen as a good Muslim in pretty much any sense of the word and as I see it devoted to his country and his family, a man any man or corporation would happily do business with. If there is one flaw, then it is the fact that he went to the Glasgow Caledonian University, so he might not cheer for Australian cricket, but we can let that slide.

My issue is not with President Rouhani, it is with the person who follows. I know it, many know it and for a massive amount, the intelligence branch at large knows it, so why do we see more and more sounds on a nuclear deal? I will tell you why, it is because the parties willing to do business will not ever be in danger. No matter what happens when the deal is made, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any danger to the US or the Commonwealth. So, those involved parties are all willing to talk, mainly because of the massive amounts of money it could bring. Add to that the oil and gas reserves that Iran has and we have the makings of a greed driven agreement.

There is just one problem, if this happens, these people will directly endanger the status of Israel. I hope that they remember that Israel is an ally?

So why is this issue? What is the danger?

There are many. Consider the moment that Iran has nuclear capabilities. How long until a nuke or a dirty bomb makes it into Israel? Less than two weeks ago we saw high ranking Iranian officers acknowledge that they are giving missile technology to Hamas, do you think that Hamas will not fire such a rocket? How dim do we need to be? Hamas and Iran are both filled with more than a share of extremists. Even if the bomb does not hit Tel Aviv, there are half a dozen places where the state of Israel will collapse if one went off. Even more dangerous is the issue when it goes off in the Mediterranean, when the rads get into the water there, tourism for Greece and Spain will collapse overnight, it is also likely that irreparable damage will be given to both Italy and France at that point. How will you live then without a Euro coin that is still around?

So, is there any doubt? Ahmadinejad: “World forces must annihilate Israel” (Aug 2nd 21012) as well as “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury“. So our issue is not with President Rouhani, it is with whoever follows. Because when that person is not a moderate, one who wants to ‘score’ a name for himself in the eyes of all Muslim nations not willing to recognise the state of Israel.

The article does extent on several other sides. One of them is “many Iranians agree that, for the moment, the president’s priorities should be economic and diplomatic“, this is exactly what President Rouhani seems to be doing, trying to increase the living standard for Iranians. He seems to be successful because of the man he is, many are willing to talk to him and take economic steps. Who would not want to do business with the prospective customer who is moderate, respected and likely relaxed. As such certain dangers are ignored, you see, Iran has rules and regulations, they are clear and precise, so any Iranian Muslim can become president, however that also includes extreme elements like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because the consequences of a ‘democratic’ system of election is that anyone can raise his voice, where the issues start. When Iran becomes a nuclear nation, we need to take a look at… but then it will be too late.

There is more than just a few articles from the average Journalist. When we look at Alon Paz, an officer of the IDF, we see that Lt. Col. Alon Paz, Israel Defence Forces, is a Visiting Military Fellow at The Washington Institute. If we take a look at his article in the Business Insider (at http://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-colonel-we-must-examine-hamas-strategy-2014-7?IR=T) we see that Iran is having more than just one influence and these actions are taken with President Rouhani in office. The question is how Iran moves forward, however, we need to keep it as an essential first step that it does so not as a nuclear enabled power, because that will change our futures in the most negative way imaginable.

The fact that Hamas has received missile technology from Iran is perhaps one of the strongest pieces of evidence against Iran becoming Nuclear, not because of those in charge, but because of select groups of officers who are propagating the need for Israel to be removed, once one of them gets into office, the lifespan of Israel will be measurable in mere hours, so as Israel starts glowing in the dark, what will America say then? “I’ll take that goat off your hands for 2 zuzim”, where will it leave the rest?

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as Ahmadinejad, France, Glasgow Caledonian University, Hamas, Intelligence, Iran, Israel, Israel Defence Forces, Italy, Lt. Col. Alon Paz, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Muslim, President Rouhani, Spain, Sweden, The Washington Institute, United States

October 2, 2014 · 23:13

Vision, Budgets and Gaming

What makes a game? Whoever has played a game, and perhaps still plays one, has at times asked themselves this question. Even if you think you are not a gamer, you might be one in disguise.

How does that work?

Well, let’s not get to the controllers just yet; let us take a look at the options.

Is it a puzzle?

On many systems, whether PC’s with or without Facebook, on a tablet or on your mobile. It is possible that you have played Sudoku! I have seen a truckload of them and two stand out. First for the iPad there is Finger Arts Sudoku, which is a massive piece of fun and it is all for free. The game is pretty much a perfect version. The second one to mention is Platinum Sudoku on the Nintendo DS. The game went cheap for around $20 and has hundreds of Sudoku’s per level and as you go along, you unlock sounds, backgrounds and so on. Once all have been done, you unlock a few million additional puzzles, Sudoku heaven in two titles.

Is it Nostalgia?

Again, tablets, PC’s and Consoles have a host of games that are revamps from older computers. Ascendancy, Railroad tycoon, X-Com, the list goes on and many are free through Abandoneware some cost just a few dollars through the Apple store or Google play. They can free your mind from several places and some parts can keep you busy for a while. It is as simple as eating pancakes.

So why these jumps?

Well, I had to make a few changes in my life and as such I missed out on a few games as my consoles remain off line for a few months, which means, no Destiny for little poor old me. Yet, is that the case? I got a link to the ‘Angry Joe Show’ who had his vision on Destiny, the 500 million budgeted cash cow for Bungie. The reviews were ranging from 60%-80%, with one overly high one. This is not good, for a game implied to be budgeted at half a billion; you would expect a 90% plus rating.

So what did Angry Joe state?

Lack of competent story telling
Repetitive mission design
Frustrating random loot

Important is that many critics have said similar things on the game. So how come it is such a success?

Well, there are two parts, the first, the marketing was top notch, they created interest and they kept interest levels high, without overhyping, which is reason that the interest stayed. Another side is that if grinding multiplayer games are your thing, then you are fine. Yet, how are these things any good?

They are not!

It seems that we are confronted with a new level of revenue based marketed games, however the overall quality of the games is going down fast, as well as the overall amount of gaming hours. Some state that the Unity main mission can be completed in 15 hours. I finished Infamous Second son in a little over 12 hours, this comes down to a one weekend of gaming, how can that be a decent investment of gaming fun for anyone? I stated issues with Black Flag, now Destiny seems to up the ante, which gives us pause to what comes next. That can be seen in several ways.

The truly big games for Next Gen, like Destiny and Elder Scrolls online are now falling because the outrage is getting stronger fast. So is making games so hard? No! it is not, for the right person, because a real visionary can create something that is desired for decades, like for example the Diablo series, and even though Elder Scrolls Online are getting a fair share of the winds of contempt, their previous games (Oblivion and Skyrim) are still regarded as top notch, even with the glitches.

When we see houses throwing a massive amount of money into something, the image is growing that things are becoming dubious. There is however an issue with that statement. Although GTA-V is not my game, it is a massive success; the game even broke the billion dollar record, which is as far as I know the only game to ever achieve that within the first week of release. There are other independent successes like Minecraft, yet we see now that Destiny made the revenue and the profit by remaining mediocre. So is it the games, or the players?

To be honest, I am not sure that the answer is that easy, for one, Destiny is almost unique on Nextgen. Xbox one has Titanfall, but the PS4 did not have anything like that (referring to multiplayer slaughtering). This skews the interest of the people. Elder Scrolls Online is also feeling the brunt in another direction. When the overall consensus is “I wish this game would’ve turned out better, but everything I read so far has told me to not even bother“, as one player stated it to be, you know that you a looking at a possible 200 million fiasco. This is in itself odd, because Oblivion and Skyrim redefined RPG gaming in a massive way. True, Skyrim is loaded with ‘glitches’ but the storylines can be played and the main story is great too. It is only when you decide to stay in Skyrim and make your character your lives work; it is then that the issues start piling up. However, as I have stated it before, Skyrim is a massive step forwards from Oblivion, which was a large leap from Morrowind, So the makers have given us more in a large way. This gives us the worry, why did they go MMORPG, when the single player games are so fulfilling.

The Angry Joe show also stated some issues on ESO. It is not unlike issues we see in several games. On top of that, one race is only there available if you buy the limited edition; in addition, it is monthly based, so the $100 comes with an additional $15 a month, with an additional $15 for a month zero payment (to set up your monthly payments). So in NextGen consoles, you will lose out on $120 before you got the first hour in. Now, let’s be fair, we need to pay, as we do with every game, but the reviews from several sources show an average game. For example you could be watching a group of 15 men try to charge whilst watching the game crash as the ESO server went down. These things happen in MMO games, yet we don’t see this with Blizzard games. And as money gets, you get 1 gold piece per kill and 2 gold pieces per boss. It seems entirely weird as a horse costs well over 17,000 gold pieces. You do get a horse with the limited edition that is $20 more expensive. So as we see the greed factor creep into the new games, we should worry on how gaming goes. Angry Joe talks a good story, brings the issues nicely with a few theatrics, so seek his views out in YouTube (seek: ‘angry Joe review’), he has published several interesting reviews.

There is trend that we now see growing, which could end gaming as the joy it has been for over 30 years.

What will come next? This is at the core of the issues we face, some (me included to some degree), as Microsoft bought Minecraft for 2.5 billion, I am worried about what they will do to it next. There is no indication of what they have in mind, but Microsoft tends to be revenue driven, which means that Minecraft will be ‘upgraded’ to ensure no less than 5 billion in revenue, which makes me slightly worried on how they will do this.

Yet, things are not truly covered in darkness yet, however, that revelations will also come with another revelation that will not make you happy. I have spoken to some degree on an upcoming game that seems to be the next real game we all need to look for. The title ‘No Man’s Sky’ is all about newness, originality and sandbox gaming, all rolled into one massive achievement. The important part of all this is the worrying part. You see, like Minecraft, this game is also an achievement by an independent developer.

So as we look at the set developers like EA and Ubisoft, we see that they have not improved their gameplay for some time now. One review on NHL15 wrote “NHL 15 is a disappointment. It lays a good foundation for the future with enhanced physics and an improved presentation, but it’s still mostly potential“, I saw FIFA15 which looks nice, but I am not a soccer fan. Games Radar stated this on FIFA15: “This year FIFA 15 pulls off a difficult trick. Not only is the game closer to a TV-style broadcast than ever, but the experience is better than FIFA’s been in years“, so it seems that there is goodness coming from EA, yet is that enough? Sports games have their own following and as such for THEM there should be a decent quality game to keep them happy, whether it is NBA, NFL, NHL or FIFA. EA is bigger than just the sports section, however in that regard; EA has remained quiet (and as such avoided ugly hypes).

However 2015 should see the light of a new Mass Effect, even though loathed by a fair share of fans, Mass Effect 3 had several good sides, amongst them the best multi player side I have ever played. Mass Effect could be the next big thing, but time will tell, so I will not add to the ‘gossip’ and ‘rumour’ fire at present.

Ubisoft has a few options, but is in my view lacking as Watchdogs became a hyped success. It was graphically amazing, yet in the core a mundane game like AC1 was. This does not make it a bad game, but it could be the mind blowing start not unlike AC2 became, yet Watchdogs one started from a much better place than AC1, so that future could be promising. If you wonder how it helps speculating on this, then I have no real answer to that. Yet, consider that these are also the questions asked in Forbes magazine as gaming is now truly big business with projected revenues in 2014 surpassing 81 billion.

So, what is the issue?

It is vision!

Gaming is about vision; those who have it bring us all the greatest games. In an age where we need to turn around every dollar, we tend to focus on the true innovation. The even nicer thing is that fun and quality gaming does not need to cost $100-$150. Finger Arts and Abandoneware have proven that. There is a clear indication that the larger developers lack vision to a growing extent, which makes for several issues down the track. The Nextgen systems are still lacking a decent pool of really good games almost a year after its initial release. This should currently regarded as a disappointment compared to the previous versions of consoles, especially as we saw Sony announce ‘This is for the players!’ and Microsoft with ‘Everything you can imagine, Plus a few things you can’t’, neither have delivered so far. So, is my view that there are issues and it is my personal opinion that this feels like a marketing machine in overdrive whilst the rest of these companies cannot keep up, my evidence? Look at the initial Nextgen Top 10 as it was published on June 17th 2013, on average 22 weeks before the consoles were released.

Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain
Quantum Break
Final Fantasy XV
The Crew
Destiny
Knack
Titanfall
Watch Dogs
Project Spark.
Tom Clancy’s The Division

Out of these 10, 2 made the release date, one was 6 months late, the rest has not been released at present and they will not come until 2015, so we see an announcement that is off by 75% (they get 5% penalty for Watchdogs). Something this far off is pretty unheard of. It views as the hype from Microsoft and Sony to get console sales high and then end up skipping out on the games (to some extent). I must state that those with PlayStation Plus were given a barrage of games, free to download. Some were decent, 1-2 were really nice, which means that some was done, but was it an acceptable step?

What will happen next?

I think that we need re-evaluate the way we look at the gaming industry and more important on how those within it market their customers. In their defence, these gamers are like a group of hungry hyenas, so feeding them any news is at times the only way for marketeers to stay alive. Yet all of this is not done yet and we must all take a long hard look at what was, what is and what should be.

Budgets

There is no denying that games will be bigger and bigger budgeted, yet consider that these games, offering less than 20 hours are closing on the quester billion to develop. Yet, we see in Minecraft that it can be done in other ways, there are more games. Elite, remade from the 1984 edition, originally created to fit a 48Kb home computer. Good games are not expensive and true vision is priceless! That part is what we have seen more than once, if we take a few of the older really good games and their cost we see Ultima VII: The Black Gate – $US1 million (1992), System Shock 2 – $US1.7 million (1999), Resident Evil 2 $US1 million (1999), Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter – $US18 million (2006), BioShock – $US15 million (2007), God of War III – $US44 million (2010). So when we see Unity, Infamous: Second Son with their massive budgets, we see the trade off, where the larger players throw money to hide vision and to some extent they are getting more than just an even payment. It is there where my issue with Gamespot and their ‘closeness’ to Ubisoft becomes an issue. How can we get honest reviews whilst the makers of games are stacking the deck for mere profit? Independent review is the only way to see what is good, what is worth the money and what is bad. How can the consumer get the right information?

This is at the heart of the matter, I would like to solve the lack of vision problem, but that lies with the makers of games. They have options, yet are they willing to learn? Even if they are willing to accept that they are no longer visionaries, not unlike Steve Jobs, there is a chance that they can spot it when they see it. The question then becomes will they protect the future of gaming.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Media

Tagged as EA, Elder Scrolls, Elder Scrolls Online, Electronic Arts, FIFA, Finger Arts Sudoku, GTA-V, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 3, Mass Effect 4, Microsoft, Minecraft, multiplayer games, NBA, NFL, NHL, No man's sky, Oblivion, Platinum Sudoku, Skyrim, Sony, Sudoku, Titanfall, Ubisoft

Lawrence van Rijn – Law Lord to be

Views from an audience

A matter of Jurisprudence

How the press became redundant

Intentionally not that bright?

Billion dollar blame

The murder of innocence

The cost of doing Business

Selling Israel

Vision, Budgets and Gaming

Recent Posts

Archives