Fraud, deception or Ignorance in IT Safety?
Again it was the Dutch NOS last night that gave me the idea of reflection on today’s blog. Their newscast and articles on NOS.nl is all about cybercrime. The news was that last year (October 2012), cyber criminals using the botnet Citadel was able to acquire over 750 GB of data. The data is coming from computers involving the Energy industry, Media corporations, Hospitals, Universities and airlines. The data seems to have gone to eastern European cyber criminals. Over 150.000 computers infected in the Netherlands alone.
Watching it, you could see login details, passwords, network layouts, detailed notes from a doctor and the medication prescribed. The amount of information was staggering! I looked a little further into this botnet. Its name is Citadel. It seems to be an ingenious piece of work. This is something the NSA, GCHQ or the FSB and several other Boy Scout units of a governmental type. When looking at the info, there was an implied strength that it could go passed and ignores many anti-virus systems. When looking at my own provider, there was an interesting lack of information regarding this botnet.
So we are looking at a three edged sword.
Are anti-viral protectors committing fraud? When looking at a Norton protection plan, and I see the green ‘Secure’ sign. Am I really secured? Tracy Kitten from Bankinfo security wrote: “Segura notes that hackers claim PCs relying on anti-virus solutions from Microsoft Security Essentials, McAfee, and Norton were infected. ‘That’s kind of worrisome,’ he says. ” So, am I paying for security I am not receiving?
It seems that this secure statement is also a case of deception. My Norton anti-virus states a secure setting, yet, citadel was initially designed to collect bank information for cyber criminals. From the two facts earlier, I must also conclude that the banks have been insincere to me on more than one occasion (big surprise I know). They claim safety and security, whilst 150.000 computers in the Netherlands seem to prove the opposite. Especially considering that banks have been trimming down on staff because much more goes on-line, yet there is no clear information that the cyber divisions of the financial industry is making any kind of strong progress. The BBC stated on Oct 10, 2012, that GBP 341 million was acquired through card fraud in 2011. The events involving Citadel imply that the losses in 2011 are not likely to go down any day soon.
Last is about Ignorance. That would be you the reader and me. These anti-viral dealers leave us with a false sense of security while we are charged $70-$100 a year, whilst it lowers intrusions, but not remove the threat. I must confess that we are all likely a lot safer with then without anti-viral protection. So stopping anti-virus protection is the worst of ideas.
I feel slightly safer as I have always refused any kind of on-line banking option. From the 90’s I knew that their X-25 protocols had several weak spots, which is now getting me to the last part of this.
If Windows is so weak, volatile and easily transgressed upon, then the dozens of security updates seem little more than a smoke screen. I reckon a lot of us should seriously consider moving to another system like Linux. Linux has proven to be a very secure system. We used to consider Apple to be very secure as it was a Unix based system, which has all matters of security or a much higher level than Windows ever had. However, that it is now an INTEL based system with Microsoft attachments makes me wonder if it remained that secure.
What is my issue with this all is that Yesterday’s news on Citadel was known with the Dutch cyber security for months, and little was done, the newscast even mentioned that many had not been alerted to this danger. I reckon that IF there is truth on transgression on ‘secured’ systems, we need to consider the dangers of connected networks. This likely endangered the infrastructure, and it definitely endangered personal information of millions. With that state of mind, how should we see the security of corporate and personal systems in the UK, US and Australia?
Consider that the implied ignoring of Cyber security is mentioned (but unproven as far as the validity of sources go). Yet, when I seek places like Norton, I get no answer (connection was reset). If we can believe people like Tracy Kitten then the financial sector that relies on massive internet presence, we are in serious trouble. On the other side is the opinion showing on the NOS site by Professor Michel van Eeten from the TU Delft. It is not really created to a directed attack. He compared it to a buck shot into the internet. It was designed to acquire login, passwords and bank details.
My issue is the fact that 150.000 systems were infected! The one flaw in the NOS newscast is the absence of the cyber safety factor. Whether Common Cyber Security was used by those infected. If so, then why are these questions not openly directed at the makers of Norton Anti-Virus, McAfee, Kaspersky and a league of other Cyber Safety providers?
Fraud, deception or Ignorance in IT Safety?
Filed under IT
Press legislation, or not?
It was not too long ago, that we heard all manner of harsh words and political contemplations on those bad bad bad press folks. All those phone hackers!
And yes, it did not take too long for parties to react and a long investigation started. It resulted in a report by the Honourable Lord Justice Leveson spanning around 2000 pages, making it a bigger work then the Lord of the Rings; yet, I guarantee it, not as entertaining to read. Many seem to agree with me. The issue however, is not the entertainment, but it was a serious look at the visibly failing ethicality of the press and it’s ‘assistants’.
Yet, it seems that the views from that report will be largely ignored. We await the release of a Royal charter for PRESS regulations in the coming week. So, how do we feel about this? The Guardian reported on the possible compromise by Labour. No matter where you stand as Labour, Tory or Independent. It is clear that there is a high issue. The PM mentioned the dangers on infringing free speech. Whether we see this as a compromise towards the press, or the ideological view is OUR view, and the view of the PM. We all fear dangers and threats to free speech and history proved that this fear is rightly so.
The issue more than team Murdoch getting caught with their fingers in the bugging cookie jar. It is about the standard and ethics of the journo’s that is the question. The evidence seems clear and overwhelming that as their papers need revenue to keep value, some were eager for money (read income) and had not too many issues throwing ethics straight into the Thames and have a free for all.
The questions then becomes, is the PM correct and should the charter suffice, OR is his honour correct and the need for legislation becomes paramount. His deputy Nick Clegg has been outspoken on the side of the Leveson report, and as such it is that the top players do not see eye to eye on this matter.
The question is whether it is a clear eye to eye, or that the involved parties (read people of the press) have lost the credibility and trust to continue the way they currently are. The issue we should not forget is that the true core of the press is a lot larger that most of us realise and most of them work hard, they keep ethics high and get published. Some break our hearts, dent our faith and crush our strength with the facts they report. So the report gives us another view. Can we actually ignore it all? Is that not wrong to those who kept the banner of Journalism high? Legislation would ensure THEIR good handling.
The issue that the PM fairly raises is that legislation would be more complicated and create a vehicle for politicians in the future to impose regulation and obligations on the press. I would like to add to that, that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Even if I ignored the fear he voices on limiting freedom of the press down the road there is an actual impasse. We would all feel divided between the two sides. They are both fair sides.
What stopped me from hailing the move towards legislation is what i had been reading lately involving several economic issues. Could legislation be used as a shelter for economic manipulation? How long until these matters get intertwined and there is such lack of legal clarity that a hedge fund gets ‘misquoted’ and the blame is pushed unto the press with all the, messages of ‘oops’ and reference to an honest miscommunication.
This comes from the NY times 9th July 2012 “Bank Scandal Turns Spotlight to Regulators”
That belief, some regulators say, stemmed from a “miscommunication,” rather than instructions from Mr Tucker. The bank also never explicitly told regulators that it was reporting false interest rates that amounted to manipulation, according to regulatory documents.
So, if this was taken as truth, then we see here an example how media regulation would just complicate matter. What if ‘them’ is a financial reporter, or just anyone in the press picking up a nice piece of news? For that matter, if I got a $1 for every mention of miscommunication I heard over the last 20 years, and if that rule only applied to people who were senior manager of higher then I would buy an island like Guernsey (or the Falkland’s with an additional free Frigate).
From those sides, and views I would see that the PM (alas) has a point. On his side is also Adrian Jeakings, president of the UK Newspaper society. He too believes that the industry is capable of policing the press. That part I wish to oppose. You see, they will play nice, they will be quiet and humble and so on, but how long until the 1,000,000 pound fine will be diminished, because it will only hurt more then it will do good? How long until some of them will transgress to the point that they should be criminally charged? At that point a QC will come into the court mentioning ‘honest mistake’, ‘my client is truly sorry and remorseful’ and so on.
This prospect moves me straight back into Camp Leveson (to coin a phrase). There is no doubt. Some of us will go one way, some the other way. No matter how we feel, we are not indifferent.
Perhaps reading the Royal charter when released will help us to clear our heads and accept that charter, or push us into demanding legislation. I do know that we have not seen the end of this any day soon.
Filed under Law
The Italian menace?
The Italian menace?
Just when you thought it was safe to think of any kind of future again, the abyss opens up right in front of you and your savings are again in danger.
The first topic of discussion as presented by the Dutch NOS was of course the European budgets. To a budget of 960 billion, the Dutch contribute 6 billion and they got a one billion dollar discount. Yes, this seems to be the Marks and Spencers approach to budgeting. Now, they seem to be happy, and I am not sure how to feel. It does however give a clear picture that the Dutch, always visible as a high player, are anything but that big. When you are profiles as a larger player and their contribution is less than a tenth of 1 per cent, that it means that they are not that big a player at all (or so it seems).
So, the Dutch politicians are going home with a satisfied feeling until the end of the decade. So how is this impacting? It is what followed that could become the real worry. It is a newscast of the return of Mr Berlusconi. Yes! He is returning to Italian politics with elections less than 3 weeks away. Does he have a chance? Not sure and not really my worry to be honest.
What is interesting is how he pulls people in with his dreams of giving back the real estate taxation of 2012. So, if that is done then Italy would be withdrawing from their promise to get their budget and deficit under control. If that happens, then what is next for Europe?
The bigger issue is that this might be a clear indication that Goldman Sachs is back and actively trying to meet their share in the Game of Greed.
They seem to be a clear controlling and influential party with most European governments. Forbes already reported this as a ‘danger’. They did mention the Monte dei Paschi banking scandal as part of their news cast as well. They also remained soft in their ideas of nations no longer being governable. I am less subtle. From my viewpoint I am willing to contemplate the opinion that the European governments are about to become the bank’s bitches with Goldman Sachs leading them the way to population enslavement. I agree, the thought is a little strong!
You see, there is method to my madness, or my madness is methodical (either way works). So, let us take a look at how I got to that conclusion.
In the Dutch newscast on this, as well as in Forbes and as well as mentioned in other sources “Berlusconi, who said he won’t seek the executive position but rather prefers to become Finance Minister, has seduced the masses saying he will repeal a property tax imposed by Monti, returning about €4 billion ($5.4 billion) to the people by refunding taxpayers’ 2012 payments” so with all the shortages, they add to the non-debt resolving side. We can debate whether it is the right or the wrong thing to do. In my view it is an Italian choice and it is their right to choose. Whether right or wrong, it is however interesting that Berlusconi seeks the Finance Ministers position. With him being a connection to Goldman Sachs as a (former) international advisor? It also means that the Italian deficit will be upped by another 5.4 billion dollars. This implies that Italy is less interested in getting their deficit down.
My issue is that according to the numbers Goldman Sachs is one of the banks retaining their gains these last years. I have nothing against that as I do have a capitalistic side. There is however a realistic side to profit, and many greed driven organisations seem to remain very unrealistic. With the ties he had/has, and the rules of the game so unaltered. I worry about what will happen to the Italian debt during the next government term.
Here is the link between this all. This was discussed by the Independent. “What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe”. In there they made the following statement: “Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions.” (Nov 18th 2011). I could not have said it any better.
Now we get to the juicy part. Should Berlusconi get elected, and then we will suddenly read on how certain realignments of bad banks will be needed? There will be a change, and of course Goldman Sachs will get their share. It is all nice and legal. No matter how they react, whether Europe breaks apart, whether the costs will once again be set into other places. We are looking at an additional total debt increase of half a trillion dollars (across the EEC) and Goldman Sachs will get their share. So why are the European legislations not dealing with this clearly visible weak flaw?
Now, here is where I get to go on thin ice. The conspiracy theorist in me might think that this is what the power players from the US had in mind from the beginning. From their point of view governments are obsolete! Especially when these governments are getting in the way of highly desired profits, commissions and personal wealth goals.
Politicians seem to get pushed into an ego trip (in some cases they are simply with their backs against a wall). They do not cover their budgets and get the back of these strong players to get visibility and media to do the things that should be investigated and questioned on many levels. The Dutch SNS was a clear example. However other banks and acting parties should not be forgotten. The ABN/Amro Bank was one of these banks that required nationalisation. They are linked in all this with connections to the Royal Bank of Scotland (who was having a nice go at acquiring ABN/AMRO). And again here comes Goldman Sachs around the corner, having a nice juicy finger in all of these matters. They were in an investigation regarding Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) traders. They were not guilty, as some people forgot to disclose certain matters. However, the LA Times reported this on October 12th 2010: “Hedge fund operator John Paulson a key player in SEC case against Goldman Sachs. His firm made $15 billion in 2007 by betting that Americans would default on their home loans in droves.” From my point of view, that is not all they betted against.
Why am I so against Goldman Sachs? The issue is not Goldman Sachs; they are not breaking any law. It is the politicians that walk away with golden futures, creating bad banks and leaving the population to work of the debt through taxation, a population left with forever less and less. Soon this can no longer remain affordable and Italy seems likely the next one moving into this direction. This is where banks and large corporations become in charge and we get to work past retirement ages to fill the need of their greed. This is a need that is eternal and will never be satisfied. If you doubt me, then look at the list of nations that was able to keep their budget. It seems that only Belgium made their budget, and that might only have been because they were without a parliament racking up cost for the most of 2011. They even celebrated their new parliament after a record 541 days without a parliament on December 11th 2011. So that would definitely helped in keeping the cost down.
So back to the headline I started with “The Italian menace?”
Is it Silvio Berlusconi the menace? Possibly! If he continues on a path that does not stop the rising debts.
Is Italy the menace? Possibly! If they do not get a handle on their debts. In this case I mean a solution where they pay for their massive overspending from more than the last decade, mostly under Silvio Berlusconi.
Will the Italian menace end the EEC? Likely! If debts keep on rising, and as insurmountable debts are taken as write off’s against retirement funds and national treasuries. It is not impossible that Italy becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Should you consider that this could never happen, then think again. The same was said about the SNS bank and that puppy is now a nationalised one (but it seems that for now it is not house broken).
This has happened again and again. This is not just about the banks. Politicians are also to blame. For that I would like to mention papers like “Investing in Greece: an Olympic opportunity”. It came from Costas Bakouris in 2001. The thoughts were all fair enough. However, how much came to happen? How much money did come in?
Most facts point towards the information that the Olympics cost double from what was budgeted and out of the amount approaching 10 billion a lot less then budgeted came in.
There was the article called “Business and investment prospects strong after Olympic Games triumph” Which was released after the games of 2004. In December 2004, through the newspaper USA Today. It was published in December 2004. The interesting part of the second story is that there was no name attached to it. So what was THAT source?
Even though the Olympics are a unique event, the financial consequences are real and high. Yet, there were no visible budget cuts and massive cuts were required. But wait, here is super hero/villain Goldman Sachs to help with the presentation of it all.
The Olympics were the most visible, but not the only one. This is what Felix Salmon wrote for Reuters on February 9th 2010 (exactly 2 years ago). “It’s a bit depressing that EU member states are behaving in this silly way, refusing to come clean on their real finances. But so long as they’re providing the demand for clever capital-markets operations like these, you can be sure that the investment bankers at Goldman and many other investment banks will be lining up to show them ways of hiding reality from Eurostat in Luxembourg.”
In that time, banks wrote cheques for investment events no one could cover. This is clearly shown in the case of the Dutch SNS. And the fun does not stop here. The article “ABN Amro hiring spree targets Asian private wealth” 29 January, 2013 Written by Elliott Holley shows that they are hiring again, with at least 1 person from Goldman Sachs. It is interesting how this small circle gets to go everywhere.
Goldman Sachs does not seem to have broken any laws. Politicians all over Europe seem to have changed very little, and they seem to all extremely willing to get into bed with Goldman Sachs, their ‘golden’ solution. National politics does not seem to regulate banks to the degree that is needed and some governments do not seem to properly regulate themselves either.
When we look at the 2011 EEC numbers we see the following: the largest government deficits in percentage of GDP were recorded in Ireland (-13.1%), Greece (-9.1%), Spain (-8.5%), the United Kingdom (-8.3%). Whilst the Government debt kept on going up and was set at 10 421 987 million Euro, which boils down to 82.5 (% of GDP). (Source: Eurostat News release 62/2012 – 23 April 2012)
They also show that Even though the GDP was set to become negatively in 2012, it had been forecast slightly positive in 2013. There is no proof of that, and whatever taxation was acquired in 2012, Berlusconi wants to hand that back to the people. Consider these numbers. Now add three facts to this equation.
1. The LIBOR scandal (see previous blog) shows how within the UK the percentages had been tweaked. This means that the percentages were incorrect. Now consider that the LIBOR is based on 4 times the planets GDP (adding up to 300 trillion $ as mentioned in several articles).
2. The GDP is the market value of all the final goods and services produced within in a country in a given time period. We have seen how people are without work. Economies are shrinking and services are lost to families all over the EEC. So how does that number keep on going up?
3. The European Economic Forecast, Economic and Financial Affairs (Spring 2012) document shows a picture again way too optimistic. In several nations it seemed to predict that 2013 was a year when things would be turning up. There is NO sign that this is happening. The belts are tightening in nearly all European nations. In addition, when we consider the SNS Property moving into Bad banks, we see that the current need for business property is diminishing due to lack of revenues. From my point of view it implies that the mentioned government debt at 82.5% of GDP (2011) could be as high as 90% of GDP. If that is true, then the overall percentages will hit all harder as the interest rates for government debts should be higher, and their credit ratings might be lower as a consequence.
Now consider that should the debt grow and their rating goes one level down, then that nation might have to pay a percentage on their debt. With governments owning hundreds of billions, an example means that a debt of $300B, if the interest is only 1% that would come down to an annual payment of 3,000 million, just to keep it stable. That means every person pays between 50 and 300 dollars to pay the interest. EVERY PERSON! Now consider that this is not a real problem for most people, however Consider that in Spain 24% has no job, that means that this amount will be paid by 75% of the population with income, so they pay more now. Then consider that the debt needs to go away.
We cannot trust banks as LIBOR shows. The EEC papers show them to think of them in a better state then they are, and the presented numbers are debatable. And as shown from several sources Goldman Sachs is connected to nearly every stage, somehow in some non-criminal way.
So two years later (after the claim by Felix Salmon), where are we now and what bad news is yet to come?
It hurts every time, but we love it
So, in this fifth part, we will have a little look at the UK banks that were hit lately. This is a progression from previous parts. Not because they were linked (they might be, but I gave no deeper look at that). The important reason is that the banks are doing more than setting a trend. This is all a continuation when banks became more then service providing organisation. They became profit driven. Instead of the normal profit of continuation it became driven to the optional profit of speculation. Even though most banks would argue that this is the way to go, the Netherlands showed how their banks lost to the amount of 40 billion Euros. This pretty much covers more their current deficit. There is also the continuation of thought on the decision makers. How can we be allowed to sit down and see how a group of less than 100 took decisions that would cripple a nation on narrated limitations like ‘miscommunications’, ‘blunders’ and sheer incompetence? More astounding is that following the acts, some decided to look at advices from corporations losing utter fortunes (Source: Telegraaf, 31st October 2012).
This is not just about the fact that we are dependent on a very small group of people. We are confronted that they are just people, with needs and dark desires. A group having ‘ideal’ dreams and writing checks a lot larger than their ego could ever cover.
So what to do?
Let’s take a look at three groups.
The Bank of Scotland, The Lloyds banking group (of which the Bank of Scotland is now a part) and Barclays.
In 2012 the LIBOR scandal got a hold of many (London InterBank Offered Rate), There were accusations and proof was given. As LIBOR affects the US market and it was seen as a violation of American law. The UK version of the Telegraph reported that the chancellor had made it clear that any financial penalty imposed by American regulators must be paid for by bankers, and not the taxpayer. (Source: The Telegraph).
From my side the first thought was that it might be nice if the US cleans up its own side first. I wonder how much money they reclaimed from upper management at Lehman Brothers? Interesting is the information, that those upper level ‘demons’ (aka members of the board of directors) got overall half a billion dollars in bonuses. How much was reclaimed? An example of this is Erin Callan (former CFO Lehman Brothers) who did get a nice payout and if I can believe the NY Times a new husband and moved to a high position with Credit Suisse. Now the next is really important. SHE BROKE NO LAWS! (As far as we know). Also, there does not seem to be any evidence of any kind that she lied. She has been portrayed as a ‘girl’ who was in over her head. That is hard for me to comment on, but it does raise certain questions. There seems to be a board of directors who seem to play the multi-billion dollar game like it is a round of Parcheesi. To debunk a trillion dollar company and then walk away with half a billion should result in more than just global questions. That part is important as at the end there were dealings with Barclays who had a small non illegal windfall. Now business is business, yet it does show that a certain game that was played in the US seems to be played in the UK to the extent that is now the LIBOR scandal.
How does this link to the Netherlands and the UK?
Well, look at the reports on how percentage bases are calculated and how it reflects not on ACTUAL debt, but based on how these debts relate to Gross National Product and how these things influence the DOW. So it is in the interest for all to keep certain numbers high. Especially for the greed driven! This is the real problem from my train of thought. Considering what I wrote over the last weeks means that the Greedy need the DOW index to move higher and higher. Yet, all the numbers give me an indication, especially when we see a global depression that those numbers should not go up the way they do. It feels to me that other factors are influencing it all. The US with the fiscal cliff (Fiscal Abyss seems more accurate). Many EEC nations are in massive debt, and then hit with waves of unemployment, higher costs, declining standard of living and no direct prospect that this will improve. People are not spending the way they did. The housing market is breaking down in several nations and so on.
So consider the next nightmare. If the DOW index drops 4,000 points to 10,000. What then? Too many people seem to ignore parts, others want to control parts and those in charge want to rule, so when it does collapse, they maintain whilst none survive.
This same view seems to be happening now in the UK. The controlling of percentages to LIBOR is only a first. A lot of these reports like the one the BBC showed in August 2012 mentioned that this system must change. This was spoken by Martin Wheatley of the Financial Services Authority. He also mentioned discrepancies going back to 1991. This means that some level of manipulation has been going on for over 20 years. So is this about ACTUAL justice, or is it that the US had become SO desperate for as strong as a hand as possible that they pulled a Benedict Arnold against their own banking ‘buddies’. For the UK readers, Benedict Arnold is the American version of Edward Devenney.
Another party in LIBOR is Barclays. They dealt in services that rely on LIBOR, by intentional misrepresenting information they got better deals and therefor more profits. The problem is that using Derivatives in this way and the involved banks’ lending money to each other it becomes a musical chair exercise in passing pieces of paper from one bank to the other. From my viewpoint it could be seen as adding funny money to the internal till and amassing profits from something that was not there. And as they moved hand to hand, they kept the margin of profit that LIBOR offers.
So the following step is reforming this. The UK government seems to be happy to accept all upgrades that Martin Wheatley suggested. However, Reuters reported on the 28th of September 2012 that these changes would add volatility to the short term markets. They also reported that the FSA (the place Martin Wheatley is from) mentions that this standard is too entrenched to replace. It seems that banks on a global scale are too afraid to rock any boat. Is it a fear that their united spread sheets are altered to remove their layer of manipulating? If that is so then their powers would soon be diminished. It seems clear to me that markets are manipulated on several levels and those in charge are in no mood to change any of it. That situation becomes a lot more volatile when you consider the US debt of 17 trillion dollars in addition to the Fiscal Abyss. Those two, when a change is set might mean that the US could be bankrupted overnight.
Any claim that this will never happen is slightly moot. Here we now get back to the Netherlands where the same was claimed of the SNS Bank. It is now nationalised. Many nations should now be contemplating massive change to remove the power of banks as we can no longer afford THEIR life style.
It is interesting that the UK is under such scrutiny by the US, yet the US is nowhere near on cleaning its own banks (in my humble opinion). This does not mean that nothing should be done. And it does not mean that they should not have done anything. There is however the question on how those could be improved (as I have asked myself and on my blog in several situations).
So we get to the Lloyds banking group. In January 2013, 8 people were charged connected to a $55,000,000 corruption scandal. (Source: AP). This is not the only issue. Ian Fraser, an award winning Journalist, who reported amongst others for the BBC and Thomson Reuters has a lot more on his blog http://www.ianfraser.org. If anyone wants to question his education? Well the man was ‘shaped’ by St. Andrews (the University, not the Saint), which means he should be regarded as a member of the highest echelon in his profession. In addition, when we look at the board of directors of the banks we mentioned earlier, then we see more than just casual links. Some of them had positions at Citigroup, the FSA, The Royal Bank of Scotland, the US Treasury, JP Morgan Chase, International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and more. This seems to remain a very small inner circle in-crowd.
It is clear that a lot more has happened and even more is happening. This is not even the complete story, but we have clear evidence spanning 2 continents that several nations have a collection of banks where it is all about the profit. Looking at the ‘blunders’ where they were willing to bet the house on all of it. So I feel that clear, visible and vocal oversight of these parties is a given essential need!
Please consider this last part. The UK banks involved in regard to the corruption case and the LIBOR scandal consists of 4 of the 5 large UK banks. It sounds harsh however this implies 80% of the UK banks have prosecutable issues. This is more than a scary statistic. I would take a guess that these 4 banks are controlled by boards of directors and they would add up to less than 75 persons. What happens when they in the same fashion as the Dutch SNS agree that ‘blunders’ were made? Could the UK survive a hit that large? More important will be the question whether the results also impact their siblings Canada and Australia?
Several questions and I expect that no clear answers will be forthcoming (any day soon). A political step could be in the form of carefully phrased denials and years of closed door meetings.
For me the conclusion from what I have seen over the last few weeks is that oversight is a must, there should be a clear list of definitions that the financial world must openly agree on and that there must be an open list of those involved in those standards.
As I close this final part of my reflections, the hope is that you enjoyed these five blogs.
These series were my thoughts on the Financial Banking Blunders as set in:
- Greed and the lack of common sense.
- Time for another collapse.
- The future of greed.
- A solution by annexing greed?
- It hurts every time, but we love it.
I will try to take an evolving look at banking laws in a future blog.
A solution by annexing greed?
In my previous blog I took a look at certain events from the SNS bank. Here I will be taking a look at possible solutions. Before we do this we will have to take a look at certain elements that are in this bad bank. Each of these bad decisions is very costly one. Now we must look at what is needed to turn this around. We do have an additional problem. The people who blew up the financial industry (aka Goldman Sachs) had a finger in this solution!
So, can anyone explain to me why people are giving ANY LEVEL OF CREDIBILITY to ANYTHING Goldman Sachs has to offer? Please explain to me why SNS Reaal went for advice to the company who lost 2.1 billion dollars and is one of the major parties behind the 2008 financial meltdown?
OK, let’s get started.
In 2006 Bouwfonds Property Finance (BPF) was acquired. When it changed hands part went to the ABO bank, and this part became part of SNS Reaal. Now, as mentioned by NOS, this part consists of a collection of real estate projects. It is interesting that many searches did not reveal a clear list. Much information is unclear as i was not able to find a complete property list.
A. Business property.
Any business property that is part of SNS or SNS Property Finance and is currently under any mortgage where payments are not up to date kept should be annexed into a government building society for either leasing or rent (no sale allowed). The reason for sale is that sales must be very closely monitored. I fear that certain parties would jump in for a quick deal under ‘dubious’ conditions that cannot be met after a short time, prolonging all this and in the end will stack up costs again and again.
A single example is Energy Business Park Arnhem. This was under mortgage with TNC which is now bankrupt with outstanding debts in excess of 20 million Euros. This is part of TCN UROP SE en TCN Assets B.V. both also bankrupt. This is just ONE example. Loss upon loss upon loss upon bankruptcy. It looks like one building seems to contain the infrastructure for several buildings, all costs, all needing Accountants, lawyers and nothing moving forward on the profit bar. The ‘Bad Bank Inc.’ portfolio is filled with these sorts of issues.
So, let us get back to annexing. These buildings are to be confiscated. Their infrastructure gets disbanded and we try to get some of the money back. If we look at the issues over 2012, than some might remember the complaint on how some of these building directors got way too much money. Well, now they get to earn that extra by turning around some of these places.
B. Consumer properties.
This is a bit harder. Many of these places are not in the Netherlands (Spain). Yet, Spain does remain the most popular holiday choice for the Dutch. I mentioned this place before. It is Mosa Trajectum (possibly more than one project). The question becomes how far payments were made, and how much is still uncovered. If not covered then I say Annex it for the Dutch Government and let they be sold in smaller parts and at reasonable prices. I consider 600,000 Euro to be severely overpriced. Some of these villas can never be sold, however, I think to let them out as holiday bungalows, and get some of the money back that way is not too far-fetched. This is what the original owner had intended. I personally belief he was not very realistic about the approach. Yes, likely some places could be sold to others for a nice fee, and yes, it will remain a loss, but at present someone is still getting some money out of a project that he is not entitled to (if the bills were paid this project would never have made it to the bad bank stack). In addition a sharper look should be taken if there is a possibility to take these places into different directions. I already mentioned that several of these places had an amateur approach to its sale (really bad websites and such). The governments through the courts should assign these places for sale with brokers who have proven to deal in good ways. All parties who have been involved in bad mortgage dealings (no matter how non-illegal) should be auto blacklisted.
This first part is all about trying to sell Consumer properties, renting out the commercial ones. However, the difference is that I want ALL middle men and all traders removed from this financial track. They have no business in a track that made it to the bankrupt pile. They failed, good luck, goodbye and have a nice day. There should also be an additional message attached as mentioned in the sale of consumer properties. Brokers and dealers are to be held accountable. That means those in dubious actions are to be withheld from new options. Their defence that they did nothing illegal is no longer an acceptable answer. It reeks like the German defence from 1945. “we were under orders (befehl ist befehl)” We need to change without softness, the atmosphere of greed driven, vulture approach of stripping places bare and walk away with a hefty handshake, money in the bank and walking with filled pockets towards another endeavour.
We have witnessed for too long how companies operated for years under the approach of conceptual profit and ending up with no revenue. This means that the monitoring efforts of treasury and taxation must change as well. This SNS example is not alone. When we look beneath the surface we see collection of events that go in similar direction. these thoughts come from the following article from the Newspaper Trouw (meaning: faithful) reporting on the 10th of October 2006 that the sale of BPF had gone to SNS Reaal with net profits of 87 million Euro in 2005 and 46 million Euro for the first 6 months in 2006. When we look deeper at this we see two optional paths. In the first path, as presented by all matters of web publications that This person Ronald Ras would be investing 250 million Euros in building a 4 star resort. In addition he had a new investor. An American that would be providing 1000 million in funds (not one billion). And what currency is that in? The article did not mention that. This was an article in April 2012. The source was the IAGTO a golf promoting website. So where are the hard facts? When seeking through web search you can find all matters of web news. Yet, when we seek the sources we should rely on (Reuters, newspapers, on-line news providers) we see that their commitment to facts is lacking completely. This is not about going after Mr. Ras. I personally do not care about the individual. I do care about large organisations like banks that seem to provide annual reports balanced nicely, that they do NOT seem to keep a proper handle on matter. The excuse that the forms look correctly should not hold any water.
This is about solutions, and this is part of that. Banks need to start doing their proper homework. From what I have been searching, reading and discovering in the last 48 hours, it seems to me that there is a massive gap in that area. We should all agree that many facts might not be on-line. However, the parts we read on-line do not seem to add up and red flags should have been raised all over the place. It will be up to the Dutch Justice department to consider the needed steps and actual steps in calling these parties to court, to give evidence and hand over documents proving correct steps were taken. A 10 second message ‘blunders were made’ should not be allowed to cover it. For the former boss “Sjoerd van Keulen”, to silently walk away, dropping his tasks as Chairman of the Holland Finance Centre looks like a joke. The Dutch Finance minister was very outspoken into confiscating previous commissions is a stronger step, and he did mention on the NOS news (2nd Feb 2013) that parts are currently not achievable as the law changes are pending at present. Those changes would give him a lot more abilities in this matter. I would suggest that Mr. Sjoerd van Keulen is placed in a public parliamentary enquiry, where he must show evidence and answer public questions by ministers and Banking CEO’s on his choices, his actions and events. This too is aimed towards a solution. For the simple fact is that the Banks think they can just walk a nice walk. Over the last three days many sources had the same line: “SNS Reaal is the smallest of four Dutch banks designated as systemically important and too big to fail, by the Dutch central bank”. It seems that they auto assumed a government injection of cash, so that they could make a mess a little longer. I think it is important that these citizens see these people live on TV. My only worry is that not unlike the passport scandal in the late 90’s the only response given will be “I do not seem to recollect the details to those facts”. The Jurisprudential fun fare will be complete at that point, but it could push the citizens into forcefully demanding massive banking changes. That is the aim. This scares banks (well more the people receiving fat checks). As long as the people are not awake, they walk away.
The Dutch could set a tone for other governments. This would include France, Italy, Spain and the UK. The simple reason is that I feel certain that this tidal wave WILL CONTINUE! My fear is that the damage will just add and add.
So far the property branch! Let’s take a look at insurances.
Two additional sides are to be seen here.
They acquired SwissLife and Axa. Interesting was that SwissLife was purchased at 16.3 times the annual profit, totalling at 1.5 billion Euro (Source: NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch Newspaper). This happened in 2007. Now, can anyone explain to me how this was a decision anything less than utterly insane? A bank agreeing to a business matter that takes more than 15 years to break even. When I was living there I could not even get a mortgage past 3.5 annual incomes. The insane part is that it has been known to be a bad bank decision less than 4 years after purchase. So this buy was conceived by….? (I am utterly clueless how this became a reality!).
Yet, this is still about solutions. The Netherlands has a few issues with healthcare and Mental Health care, so we could unite the two. Consider the possibility to get 2,000,000 people switch now to SwissLife/Axa, which is roughly 8% of the population. Making these funds all government, we get two things.
First is that the government gets a MASSIVE financial injection. Yes, it comes at the expense that healthcare costs will go up too. Consider however that several of these funds have a board of directors with a very fancy fat check and commission. All that money will now go into the treasury. More important is that those profits could pay for the needed mental health care that is now being scrapped as there are no more funds. This is obviously not a perfect solution, but it is a possible stronger move forward. In addition, the events towards SwissLife/Axa might help to stabilise certain retirement funds. As Swiss life and Axa improve either other funds MUST do better, or their customers would move to SwissLife/Axa. This would mean that retirement funds go towards a non-commercial, government controlled side. Very much like the Swedish system. This might not be a bad idea. I will be the first to admit that many complaints will go up; however this is about more then moving forward. A fundamental change is essential here, and we might as well consider going into another direction all together. In the end if this does work, then SwissLife/Axa can be sold again for with a good profit, which is also nice to add to the empty treasury. I kept the two together as any solution for SwissLife and Axa might require a solution in the same direction.
These sides all need new and adjusted legislation. They need guarantees in place. However, consider that the people are no longer funding some person’s fat check, but it goes on the big stack benefitting all. This means that millions are already saved. Not a bad way to achieve Social Justice.
My ideas remain (highly) debatable, but I feel strongly about two sides. The first is that some financial institutions like Goldman Sachs are to be blacklisted. We seem to revisit places for advice that are at centre of the mess we got into in both 2004 and 2008. In addition, why should nations keep on funding US businesses, whilst its government will not get a decent handle on these corporations, their own debt and their own impending bankruptcy? Several experts in this field keep on claiming that rules and more regulations are not the solution. I am not sure whether they are right or wrong. I do know that those presently in charge are all about greed. THAT is a massive reason for many problems and until those people are under control, they should not have any control at all. We are heading to massive changes. Not just in Europe, but also in most Commonwealth nations. Without those greed icons we might have a chance. With them our chances are zero. In addition, I am not some Social Justice type who opposes Capitalism. I believe that Capitalism can propel any industrialised nation. But this has gone over the top. When it becomes about revenue and shares, and no longer about actual profit, there is no Capitalism! We remain with nothing more than greed and a vulture based decay. Those two I do oppose strongly.
Filed under Finance
The future of greed.
Today another example of failing greed has become apparent. The Dutch SNS bank has been nationalised to avoid a large bank from going bankrupt and delivering millions into utter despair. It had been some time in the workings, and to be honest, they had been trying to find new investors, new finances and solutions. This solution is not what the bank wanted and not what the governments wanted, but they told us that they had no choice. There was an interested party; however they would only want to buy the bank, and not the bad sides. So they were willing to buy the cream and dump the milk.
The consequence would have been sizeable. Now the bill is close to 5 billion Euro, making the bill 220 Euro per citizen. In addition the not profit making real estate branch is placed into a bad bank that side had to be guaranteed by the government for an additional 5 billion Euro (Source: NOS). The people with investments like bonds and shares lose it all, they lost all investments. This is a unique event. I can definitely agree with the Finance minister stating that it is ridiculous that a good investment makes money, whilst a bad investment is still covered. To me this is like gambling with 0 risk. The Dutch Finance minister stated that the financial industry must accept ad deal with its own losses. Those losses are set to a total of almost 1.25 billion Euro. We can all agree that this invoice adds up to a massive amount of money. These issues do have one emerging issue. As this has never happened before, it might end up in lengthy trials, tribulations and litigations.
There is an historical side to this. This bank was founded in the early 30’s. It was a simple labourer’s bank for savings and mortgages. It was all working fine. When the bank goes public in 2006, things change fast. Through this step they obtain 1.5 billion Euro in funds. They enter a field of high risk property investments. After the 2008 crash they get an injection of an amount approaching 750 million Euro. So we are looking at a bank, who was allowed to proceed to play Las Vegas style Craps with billions and they are now a non-party. A small group of people had thrown it all away in a little over 5 years. They wasted over a billion a year and no one with authority, insight or even common sense stopped any of this. And this is just one bank! (Source of most of these numbers: NOS).
The question becomes was this bank fattened as a pig, to be handed as a roast? After an era of bad banking, of inflated accreditation and as we saw the plunge of 2008 all over the US and other places, why were these dangerous environments not handled by the respective local governments? To give an additional view, the Dutch government had deposited 34 billion into Dutch banks nationalizing those 3 banks. 11 billion has been recovered (as in paid back), yet 23 billion is still to be recovered. So this is over 1000 Euro per citizen. This is not including the bad bank side which has billions in bad property choices (read investments). This part has places all over Europe that no one seems to want to buy. I wrote about this earlier. Those exclusive places that only 0.1% could afford, and those people do not want to be close to one another.
The issues of SNS Reaal were described as a stacking of blunders and mismanagement. This is not the first but the third bank that had to be saved using taxpayers money. This should lead to overwhelming questions as to WHY there is such reluctance to keep a better watch on this group of people. The UK has its own demons on this field, the Lloyd banking group to name but one.
The Huffington Post UK Charlie Thomas wrote: “The chairmen of five of the high street’s biggest banks today appealed to their industry to accept their wrongdoing and continue work to rebuild a sense of trust with the public.”
That does not even sound funny. That thought has two massive issues.
1. The issue at hand is more then not distorted, and there is NO clear message at all where the mistake were made, what corrections are made and how it will be prevented in future. That entire operation is a story of unclear messages. There seems to be no clear person to hold accountable (not as in blaming, but as in cleaning it up). Charlie Thomas also quoted Sir Philip Hampton, chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland group, quoting: “At the core of our bank, there’s never been anything wrong with it – we did lots of stupid things, but once we’ve rectified those silly things we’ll be in a good position.”
Well from that point Sir Thomas I would like to point out that these bungles are too often greed driven and as such a no-one-to-blame policy sounds very grown up, yet the driving spears of those star chambers remain untouchable and oversight is in my humble opinion one of the few remaining options.
2. Over the last few years these banks, namely the banks in the EEC messed up (or let’s just call it plainly mismanaged) for an amount of many billions of dollars. How long can we allow for back-door dealings between governments and banks? How long until these levels of mismanagement are translated into complete confiscation of goods and owning from those in charge and then if debt remains added long term prison sentences? The UK used to hang people for highway robbery. Those of lesser crimes, like stealing bread, would find themselves on a paid holiday trip to penitential Australia (now a major Commonwealth nation far from the UK). So what are these banks doing? Should it be seen as nothing less than highway robbery, or was it a massive heist? The simple heist of all bread from all the people?
Now, I will admit, that at present, I seem to be no better than others. However, this is only part 1. In my next blog, in part 2 of this blog, I will look at possible solutions. What can we do? I would especially like to look at the options, currently within the bad bank called the Property ranch of the SNS Bank. What could be done to limit the damage?
Filed under Finance
Time for another collapse
We have all seen the state of matters on many nations. Including Australia loads of nations are in a massive downturn. America keeps on spending money they do not have. Spain is fighting a massive wall of unemployed (over 24%). Greece is fighting just about everything from no longer payable debts and unemployment figures to phantoms of their past. In addition to this France, Italy and Ireland have issues with both debts and people somewhat not working. Last but not least, the Dutch economy is at a low and they are about to change the current Monarch. Add to this the referendum that is at the heart of the UK, will they remain in the EEC. All these are questions that hold matters that stop an upturn of their economy. These are bleak times indeed.
So can anyone explain to me that the Dow keeps rising? (Seriously, I am not an economist!)
Apart from a dip around January 8th there is no real upturn in the US. They have their issues around budgets, around 7.8% in America does not have a job, their export is not what it needs to be and it seems that their numbers are not what they appear to be. Citing a newscast where the following was stated “The US unemployment rate falls to 7.7% thanks to the reduction in the labour force.” So from that we could consider that yes, there are less unemployed, those people did not get a job, they became pensioners. What other misrepresentations are they making? Now, let’s be honest. They are not doing anything wrong, not just because it is done by all, but because they are clinically speaking the truth. Yet, considering these truths, the question remains. Why is the Dow Index going up and up and up?
Are we about to get hit with a 3000 point drop, and if so, who’s wealth will fall away, the banks and bankers or the retirement funds? It feels like America has adopted a Japanese way. The way of the ‘Yes’ people! Hai!
Americans shy away from bad news. They go play Possum, they ignore, they reject. There is no fight for improvement, there is no middle ground. It is only Victory or Apathy, and victory is a term used often and mostly never deserved. Lately we see messages like this: “Just one hour before midnight on New Year’s Day, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a one-year renewal of federally-funded Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC)”. Decisions of the 11th hour! Even issues on the fiscal gap are deadlocked. Moving forward is not just hard to do, it seems impossible to some to make the hard calls. If they like victory stories that much, they should take a look at Germany. Just so that readers are up to speed, let’s take a little walk on the historical side.
June 7th 2010 “The German government on Monday announced plans to reduce spending by €80 billion ($95.7 billion) by 2014 in the largest package of cuts since World War II” (Source: Die Spiegel)
There was a lot of commotion. Several nations called it overreaction, some called it nonsense. In an IEX article on Macro economy they all mentioned how Germany is such a worry. They even quoted George Soros as a source of it as he spoke at a University in Berlin. How irresponsible these cut backs were. Yet, now Germany has a strong economy, much stronger than anyone else in Europe. I wonder if they saw through the Megalomania of George Soros. It had been advocated by people like Glenn Beck for a while. It seems to me that on a planet of debt, those who own money, those who are in the favour of banks would be in charge of the planet. It is one way of making governments flaccid to your actions; they desperately need what you could spend in their country.
Yet, I am digressing from the issue, which remains the Dow index. Germany remains the only one who fought back these debts with success. It stands to reason that the Dow should not be this strong. Consider that the Dow is fully called “The Dow Jones Industrial Average”. Now consider the unemployment levels which is up and the spending ability which is down. Both elements are off on a global scale.
So how come that this index keeps on rising? What artificial flavours are added?
Now consider that the debt of most nations is based upon Gross National Product (GNP), now consider this falls, which means that the debt quickly rises as per example below.
GNP = $1B, debt is set at 3%, which means that the actual debt is $30M.
Now consider that next year, the GNP is only $700M, which means with a debt of $30M the debt is now 4.28%. This is far more than their agreed and allowed margins of debt. Is this why the Dow is rising? To keep debt percentages low? Also consider that most debts are not millions, but often billions, and in one case many trillions.
You might wonder. Does this matter? Yes, it does for two reasons.
1. The same applied to people with debts in the US. And then in 2004-2008 one in six in the US lost their houses as their spread sheets stated an overly large debt. Why should this not apply to governments? Why are they not accountable for their actions (or better inactions).
2. We seem to be getting that ‘we are still OK’ message, while the impression seems to be that some people are cooking the books (or slightly more precise, they seem to be cooking the percentages).
So the question becomes when it happens (not if it happens) that Dow number slices down to 10,000 or less, who is kept holding the bag?
A truly original game
Today, as I had a free moment. I took a look at the PS3 on-line store. There was no particular reason, when I looked at the new demo’s, a title popped up at me, it was a game called ‘The unfinished Swan’.
It made me curious, and as it is a free demo, I downloaded it and took a look at the game. It starts so strangely. It is a white screen, and I mean WHITE! So for a second I was not sure what to do. When I pressed the trigger. A black ball shot out. It landed and the ball turned out to be ink. It was covering a wall. I shot all around me and soon it was clear I was in a corridor, and now I could follow it to wherever I was going. This is way unique!
The level only showed what I blasted in black, and too much black and I am back in a view where I cannot see anything. I got the hang of it and soon the corridor became a road, with a pond, stones, benches, statues and more. This is an entire new game. It is original and it draws you in. Of course, the demo only gives a small part, and as you go through this demo, you will soon see a small storyline emerge. It reads like a fairy-tale for kids (eh… I mean non-adult players).
This game is supported by PlayStation move, but it works just as well with the controller as far as I can tell. As it is free, I advise all with a PlayStation 3 and an internet connection to download it and have a go. Be aware that the download is 1.6 GB, so without broadband, do not attempt it.
This is not a shoot-em-up (unless it is a paint-ball game), and it look like it is fun for many, not just the young. This is an Original game in every sense, so I think we will hear a lot more of this game in the near future. What is a given, that looking back to 2012, no game this original had been released for some time, especially on the PS3, so it feels good that we get something more than a re-release or a second or third version of a game we already know.
Take a dip in this paint bucket and give the game a try. You might end up having a lot more fun then you bargained for!
Filed under Gaming
Is Ignorance now a valid defence strategy?
I must admit, that the case link that passed me on twitter had my in all states of confusion and amazement. The issue is that an 18 year old Muslim boy had ‘consensual’ sexual intercourse with a 13 year old girl. (Something we tend to refer to as paedophilia). Judge Michael Stokes decided to give the boy a 2 year suspended sentence.
The article was on the UK Daily mail, and I decided to take another look, yet, not much luck. Most other papers haven’t touched it yet, or will not touch it at all. Even Sky News UK seems to remain silent on the matter.
Let’s take a first look with legal eyes.
This was not a situation involving consent!
The Crimes Act 1900 (Australia) States in Section 61HA (4)
A person does not consent to sexual intercourse:
(a) If the person does not have the capacity to consent to the sexual intercourse, including because of age or cognitive incapacity, or
So, because of age, we have negation of consent.
This could now falls under Section 61I, Sexual assault
Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and who knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
However, the ‘AND’ is massively needed, this did not seem to be the case here. So, there was NO sexual assault.
But, this situation is captured in Section 66C Sexual intercourse—child between 10 and 16
(1) Child between 10 and 14
Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years is liable to imprisonment for 16 years.
So, he would get an additional 2 years in wonderful penitentiary Hilton. This would be an open shut case if we read the Crimes Act, however, in CTM v R [2008] HCA 25 where a suspended term of 18 months was delivered. There the facts were not the same. However, in this case the accused was under the honest believe and on reasonable grounds that the victim was over 16. (And not the age of 15 as she turned out to be). This scenario does not play the same way in the UK (Where they call this part the Sexual Offences act 2003).
There in Section 9 it states:
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
This is different. Yet, it should not matter as the accused knew the age, but did not know that the act was illegal. If we go by Section 9 (2) he would again be entitled to a government paid stay at Hilton Penitentiary for no longer than 14 years.
So is ignorance bliss?
This is only part one of the entire play. The second part is all about the following sentence : ”Earlier the court heard how Rashid had ‘little experience of women’ due to his education at an Islamic school in the UK, which cannot be named for legal reasons.”
If we look at The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) which makes it illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex or marital status, and applies equally to women and men. Then we get two issues. One, the accused was guilty of discrimination (we will for now ignore the fact that he was genuinely not aware of this). The actual issue is that these values are allegedly propagated by this Islamic School. This is only one side, and we should await the official response of the school. However, the verdict has already been passed in the case of Mr Rashid.
So, is there another issue to prosecute? If the school was indeed guilty of this, then even though the accused should be convicted with more than a suspended sentence, it does give weight to this verdict where he only got a suspended sentence, and the school themselves should ALSO be held accountable for the transgressed events and as such another look should be taken in regards to Muslim school in the UK (actually, pretty much everywhere in the commonwealth). This is not me speaking against Muslim religion. We should all be aware that Christianity has had its own demons when it came to assigning equal values to women. There is however an issue with the fact that we embrace (or seem to embrace) equality. It seems from the information that the Muslim School does not seem to do that, and as such, it should be considered that these schools would have no business in any non-Muslim nation.
The end result is that a Muslim abuser who ‘didn’t know’ that sex with a girl of 13 was illegal is spared jail.
His honour ruled that putting this man into jail would do more bad then good. It is a hard call, especially as many want to side against a Muslim. Yet, he seems to have acted within his Muslim morals. I find it hard to convict him. I have fewer issues with a hard lash at this Muslim school, for the simple reason that this is managed by adults. THEY know (or should know) the law in the UK, especially in regards to matters of discrimination. To voice against the value of women should not be allowed anywhere within in the Commonwealth.
Filed under Law
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 