Tag Archives: BBC

January 9, 2014 · 12:45

A healthier population

The Guardian notified me of another issue ‘rising’ in the UK (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/08/government-dancing-tune-drinks-industry-doctors). It is a nice article on setting the minimum price of alcohol. Is it a bad idea? Nah, I do not think so, there is ample believe that setting a higher minimum price might (I state might) dissuade a few people from drinking alcohol, but the amount of people that alcohol abuse is impacted will for the most not be hit by such changes.

I found the issue that lobbyists were meeting with politicians a little laughable. Is that not their function? In the end, the fact that these lobbyists had such easy access is noticeable. Is it about the 130 meetings, or perhaps the implied 130 free lunches these politicians might have had?

The one passage that did get my attention was “In an open letter, 21 senior doctors and campaigners, including Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, special adviser on alcohol for the Royal College of Physicians, raised fears that ‘big business is trumping public health concerns in Westminster’.”

This is a matter of concern. The question becomes on what might be a solution that would actually work? I do not pretend to have the answer, or the wisdom to answer the issue as it could be resolved. The Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-19699/Alcohol-abuse-costing-Britain-6bn-year.html, not the best source of academic like information) stated that it costs the government 6 million pounds (the BBC stated much higher numbers in Feb 2013), as well as a cost to the NHS of 207 million pounds.

Perhaps we should consider another method. Something more like the subtle message we see on cigarette packages in Australia. How about these people get a standard letter as their details are recorded? The letter should go something like this.

Dear drinker,

Thank you for soon drinking yourself to death. Even though you are (for now) still alive, the pressing shortage of houses and jobs will be slowly resolved as you die from alcohol abuse. At present, as the damage is voluntarily self-inflicted, you have no right to any medical support other than the one you can pay for through the use of cash or credit card, which must be paid for before you receive this aid.

Should these events result in your death, then your belongings must be collected from your apartment within 48 hours, or they are regarded as forfeit! We, the government are grateful that you vacated your job and housing for a person who wants to make life better for themselves and those around them.

Kind regards,

Your local politician (insert name here).

That letter might actually have two interesting effects. The first would be that the person scares him/herself into a state of perpetual soberness. The second one is that his/her direct family might also deal with this situation, which could help the drinker get a hold of him/her self.

Why this way?

Consider when we see the damage of alcohol and we keep on having this ‘soft’ approach on a group that will continuously binge drink themselves. The BBC in February 2013 (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21586566) stated an even grimmer picture, so clearly something is not working. Consider how much a person pays to drink and the additional damage a country receives. Why must this go to the taxpayer?

The current drop in legal aid funds in several nations (most notably in the UK). The drops in assigned budgets which are currently stopping mental health workers to continue do their job. It is also notable that people with a mental health issue (the non-alcoholics) are cut twice. On one side they lose out on legal aid, the other side they get cut on mental health assistance. The third side is added as the NHS has no money left.

I personally do not see the levels of alcohol abuse as a mental health issue. (Alcoholism is without question a mental health issue). The people who drink more because they can’t get laid, they are ignoring their temporary issues or they are just in a party race of who can drink the most are a massive part of the current cost of alcohol abuse as we see it happen. So, if they are left to die, less are there to compete in fast drinking, which solves that part. Less are alive to get noticed, so those alive might get laid (resolving the second issue) and when many people see that an issue gets them killed they work it out themselves which takes care of item three.

Seems like a nice simple package!

The reality is that this issue is not that simple, but the crux is that these money costing issues have to be resolved. The treasury coffers are empty and these transgressors need to be made aware that when you get in a state such as they get in, they might no longer get any support getting over it.

The time of ‘Whatever! Have another drink‘ is gone, not only do we need to be held accountable for our actions, a change is needed on the levels of support that is given to some as they abuse themselves and others. Consider that a refugee cannot get any legal aid when it has to deal with what is now known as a ‘rogue landlord’, then consider that the same landlord drinking his kidney using rogue rent cash into failure gets all the assistance he/she needs to do it again.

We as a population and politicians as a deciding group have been focusing on the wrong sides of the equation. With coffers empty, economy at long time low and groups of people burdening a system that can no longer support it, we must look into new directions.

They might work, they might not, but not changing anything is no solution, that part has clearly been proven.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as alcohol abuse, BBC, legal aid, mental health, mental health issue, NHS, rogue landlords, Royal College of Physicians, Sir Ian Gilmore, the Guardian

December 9, 2013 · 03:47

The other solution

This blog today is not a positive or a nice one. It could be seen as a clinical one or even an academic one. It all relates to a state of mind. I have been up for most of the night. Medication got me to some part (after a 16 hour sleeping spree), an uncanny feeling of anger got me the rest of the way. Now, I did not immediately write this story at that time. I learned that you should never make decisions from a place of anger. I think it could be stated that one must not write in anger either. It gives way to only emotion and even though in emotion we might write the story with pure feelings, the chance that others read it in similar fashion is slim to none at best.

The all started with the following news information: It was about the departure of the whaling vessels (at http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=931971). There were two quotes that got my attention “The three ships departed from the western port of Shimonoseki on Saturday to join other ships to hunt up to 935 Antarctic Minke whales and up to 50 fin whales up until March.” Which gave me the first thought ‘Do we still have that many whales?‘ The second quote was “Japan’s whale hunts have long drawn criticism from activists and foreign governments but Tokyo defends the practice saying eating whale is part of Japanese culinary tradition.” I will get back to the second quote later, because that is the one that got me here.

I had to look up some details on the number of whales. Apparently there were at present 800,000 remaining Minke Whales, which turned out to be a 3 year old number. I searched for many sources, yet that number seemed to be way over the top. This is a lot more then I bargained for. Yet, in the end, the numbers that are estimated are immensely lower than that. The international whaling commission estimated the number of Minke whales in 2003 for the North West Pacific and Okhotsk Sea at around 22,000. It was an estimate. We could come to the definition that the numbers seem to be way too low. So in this environment Japan wants to kill 935 for consumption, which is just over 4% of the Minke whales (going from unconfirmed numbers). Japan does not stand alone however, Norway, its brother in whaling Genocide had been active as well. There are no clear numbers, but consider what we know about people in general (the average greed driven business type), it is interesting that Japan had not been able to meet its alleged quota for some time. Even though anti-whaling is taking pride in this, I must question that. Is it truly due to the anti-whalers, or have the number of whales declined even further.

This brings us to an additional number. If those numbers are a lot more declined, then what about its favourite customer, the Orca? The Minke whale is a delight to the taste buds of the Orca, and if they go hungry, then what? The Orca is already endangered. We can see that Hawaii reported an estimated 349 Killer Whales (Orca’s) at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/po2012_summary.pdf. There is no way to tell how accurate these numbers are and the area these numbers encompass; unlike Homo sapiens, the fish do not rely on Visa and Passport restrictions to get around, there simply seems to be no way to tell! So back to the Minke Whales. No matter how I twist or turn this, there are no accurate numbers, and there is no way to truly tell. Whether the IWC is intentional in keeping the light away is not a given. It seems to me that the IWC is about longevity of the ‘trade’ and fishing into non-existence is detrimental to their health.

Now we get to the second part, which might turn a little ugly (not intentionally though). The quote “Tokyo defends the practice saying eating whale is part of Japanese culinary tradition” got to me. Now, I am all for culinary traditions and we all have them. I have never eaten whale! Not intentionally, I will admit. I do love seafood and as such there is some curiosity to the eating of whale. The issue I have is with the numbers. You see, whatever tradition you want to keep is fine with me, but when we see the dwindling number of Whales and if we accept that Whaling quotas were not kept, not because they were unwilling to do so, but more likely that they are unable to meet them gives way to the thought that the number of whales have diminished even further then some report. So whatever we see here in regards to the Japanese might also apply to the Norwegians.

So, to preserve and increase the number of whales we can go two ways. We either stop whaling altogether, which apparently the Japanese are unwilling to do, or we decimate (read cull) the Japanese population.

Got your attention now, don’t I?

You see, the Japanese population DOUBLED from 1930 to now. Japan has housing and feeding issues, so why not cull the herd of the Rising Sun? I have no hatred for Japan or the Japanese, so do not see this as a voice of hatred in any way. Consider the ‘neatness’ of the solution. If there is 50% less to feed, then there is 50% less need for whale meat, which should put a nice dent into that requirement. Perhaps, to give the whale a little time to get their numbers back up, a Japanese culling of 60%-73% might be called for.

Is that over the top? You see, that is the crux of it all. Japan has been a proud fishing nation since before the 16th Century. As a person born in the Netherlands, it is something that I have in common with them. The Dutch also has had their issues with Fish. As technology advanced, so did the fishing industry and in the old days ‘Botters’ (as they were called) had two engines with no more than 50 horse power each (which was quite powerful vessels in the 1930’s). In the 1970’s I did some of my work on Kotters, which had between 250-295 horsepower (less powerful then Trawlers). In this industry the reality goes that the bigger the engine, the more you can fish. Even in those days it had become imperative to limit fishing, so that both fish and the fish industry could endure. Even in those days, the Asian super fishers were an issue. With their engines being in excess of several thousand horses. Not only were they a lot larger for just the fishing, but they would also process and can the fish on some of these. That was 30 years ago. Whaling had evolved in similar way. No longer did they go out with hand thrown spears in small rowing boats. No, today these boats have a military style of artillery that shoots out a spear with a rope. It might seem more humane, but as whalers would work 2-3 days to process one whale, nowadays these large ships could process a whale in a mere 3-6 hours, which means that the number of whales processed increase dramatically. This is also part of the conundrum we seem to face.

Let us consider the BBC article on whaling which was published in March 2012 (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17312460), we get quite a different view. The Japanese fishing fleet had only been able to achieve a THIRD of their quota. Now, I am willing to give praise to the anti-whaling groups, but in honesty, I do not think that this is entirely correct. Make no mistake; the anti-whaling group seems to have an impact. However, the fact that they stopped 2/3^rd of the quota seems a bit much. This is where it becomes an issue! Consider that these ships are really expensive. They need to make above a certain number to do better than break even. They have the most modern of electronic fishing equipment and as such, they have an advantage on the old fleets. Yet, they catch less and less. This is part of the foundation where I state that whaling numbers are a lot lower then certain parties claim them to be. I also will admit that I could be wrong. Yet, consider the facts. Modern fishing fleet, electronic equipment to sniff the whales out and they catch ZIP! Over the same large parts of the ocean they stumble upon less and less whales. Could I be right?

So what are the numbers and how many eat them? That is in the actual bottom line. Feeding 120 million Japanese with fish is a fish population draining exercise, but to what extent? This takes me (and perhaps several readers) back to the ‘conspiracy theory days’ of the late 70’s where we heard the noises that we were running out of food and soon we would all go hungry, which always made for a real good rerun of the movie Soylent Green (a legendary movie with Charlton Heston). At that time we had just passed a population total of 5 billion and 2% of that population lived in Japan. Now the global population is 50% larger and this issue has brings about an interesting part. Even though Whaling brought them in the ‘lime light’, the overall need to feed a population is getting an increased amount of visibility. Consider the story from Matthew 14:13-21 where a population was fed on 5 loaves of bread and two fish. Now consider that we feel a need to feed not just us but the hungry too. How much fish do we need to feed 7 billion people? I feel certain that 5 loaves of bread and two fish will NOT cut it. Even though many do not just live of fish, the validity of it remains, how many Minke whales are left and how can we prevent that these species, as well as other whale species become extinct?

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Science

Tagged as BBC, IWC, Japan, Japanese population, Minke whale, Minke whales, Norway, Orca, Shimonoseki, Sky News, Soylent Green, Whaling

October 15, 2013 · 19:10

In Media, we distrust!

Is it not a lovely day when you wake up, you go downstairs and if it is warm enough, likely in nothing more than a simple bathrobe you sit down. At this point, whether it is inside, or outside, you get the first start of the day with coffee and the newspaper. For most people, that part had been for a long time a slice of heaven.

We would go through the news whilst sipping tea or coffee (in my case the latter). What if I told you that these times are now forever a thing of the past?

My reasoning? For this I will go over each case in three parts. First the point I make, then the reasoning for that point and lastly the motive I personally think is behind that. I would like to add sources, but at times there are little to none and it is all based on common sense.

First there is no need to rehash the entire Leveson history. That reports was made and filed and suddenly the press was all uppity uppity on ‘the freedom of speech’ and how their rights are now no more.

Let us take a look at this part.

1. How often does the press report on privacy violations by large companies like Microsoft?

Answer: almost never. I found one article by the guardian, and a few by what we would normally all less reliable sources. (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/microsoft-privacy-chief-nsa)

Motive: The publications rely on big business (advertisements). It relies less on governments as their form of income and in addition, government is always seeking visibility, big business brings in money. In this situation I personally think that the press seems to be willing to ‘ignore‘ or whisper very softly certain events.

How about Microsoft HealthVault?

They state: “Privacy, It’s your HealthVault account. You decide who can see, use, add, and share info, and which health apps have access to it. HealthVault won’t provide your health information to any other app or service without your permission.”

Venturebeat had the following interesting quotes “For instance, Microsoft reserves the right to store your medical data offshore, in countries that may not have the same privacy protections as the U.S.”

“HealthVault appears to open the door to a potentially unlimited line of people, entities or programs that can obtain permission to read and alter your health information, since it’s possible to delegate the ability to grant those permissions to others.” If did find a few mentions by CBS and ZDNET, yet the papers (the big ones) did not show up in any search. Even though this issue is not that recent, it is still interesting that the big ones aren’t anywhere near this place.

If we consider that this means that if an insurer gets access to this, then the smallest visit to the hospital could result in an increase to your premium. This is all linked to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996. There we find that the HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the disclosure of Protected Health Information held by what we would call “covered entities” (employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain health transactions.) By regulation, the Department of Health and Human Services extended the HIPAA privacy rule to independent contractors of covered entities who fit within the definition of “business partners”.

So, if these contractors are outside of the national borders, your health data goes into several other directions too.

Consider that we volunteer this and other personal data to Microsoft (your Skype, your software, your Microsoft devices and your browser). How long until you represent a Z-Value? Not before too long, you are diminished to several Z-Values, and as your value depletes to below the norm, what options will remain for you?

Yet, the press seems to banter again and again on NSA and GCHQ. The question becomes, whether the press is nothing more than a simple tool to make us look the wrong way, whilst big business has a free go at us and our personal details.

I do not claim to know what the actual truth is here, but I do know that the press has not been focusing on the wider truth and reality too much lately. That is something that becomes slightly more visible when we read Claire Fox in her smug article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/leveson-has-done-his-damnedest-to-encourage-press-regulation-despite-his-protestations-8874676.html)

When you hear the actual response by his Lordship in regards to WHY he felt it was inappropriate to answer, Claire just trivialises it in the air of “that he would not play ball“. Let us not forget that it is her right to see things in the way she did, I will not attack that, but this situation left me with question marks on how far ‘misrepresentation‘ goes at present.

So if big business is protected through non-visibility, then why don’t we just get rid of all journalists and rely on bloggers? The digital world is ready for it all, journalists no longer seem to be truly ‘story‘ driven, when the bulk hang on the usual GCHQ drab anyone can get from Reuters and the bulk of the big business transgressions remain on blogs, I wonder where the journalistic pride and ethics remained as they claim their part in their need for ‘freedom‘.

2. How will many protect their children and finances if visibility remains low on issues that have an impact? Many PC’s and tablets get linked to games that are ‘proclaimed’ to be free. Yet, when you want to move forward, you can pay for additional options.

The BBC covered this on September 25th (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24272010). The Guardian seemed to have covered the same story and that is pretty much it. So why is there not a lot more visibility?

I had a look at a program called ‘Dragon Story‘. It looks nice, it is a little non-adult, but it has a few original sides. You can breed two dragons together and they leave an egg. You can hatch that egg and get a new different dragon. You can buy many of them, or if you take the time breed your collection. This is all pretty original. The dragons in their habitats collect money and that money can be used to grow your area. Yet, the part not shown is that some dragons are rare, some habitats (larger ones) are expensive. Smaller habitats can be bought with coins, but the larger ones must be bought with gold. That costs actual money. A child can without realising it spend $20 per habitat, some dragons; the really rare ones cost $50. So in 30 seconds a child can spend more money than a full version of Grand Theft Auto costs. It is clear that actions can be taken to prevent some damage, but the visibility is not there. Why?

In reflection upon ‘Dragon Story’, an addictive game named ‘Blockheads’ (a 2-d version of Minecraft) can also be downloaded for free, and you can buy an upgrade so that all actions go twice as fast. The price, $5! Now an additional option can be bought for $3, so that the player can play in higher resolution, a total of $8 for something that need not be bought, the choice is up to the player. THAT is what I call an excellent approach!

So where is the press here?

It cannot be for the lack of ‘public’ interest, as the tablet market in the UK alone is soaring towards 190 million owners this year. That is more than the total global owner base of the PlayStation 2 used to be (which was 150 million). So, one could say that tablet issues should be at the top of every newspaper. The Google search seemed to contradict this (I had to start somewhere).

So when we look at these heated arguments on the freedom of the press, we should be asking ourselves what they are complaining about. Freedom is nice, but when they relate it to the limits of their cubicle we get to miss a lot of information, the press and especially their editors should realise that.

In my view, to the extent I had read the Leveson report, I saw it not as an attack on the freedom of the press, but on the ‘enforcement’ of ethics and accountability. Those two are elements in any form of Journalism. For I am never against the freedom of the press, I do think that some acts require accountability. The hollow phrase ‘the people have a right to know’ lost its value when some used it to tabloid away all levels of privacy. Crashing a funeral less than two weeks ago by the Daily Mail is an excellent example of that. I do wonder whether all this is just about the journalists, or was the Leveson escalation due to a failing by the editors to keep a proper pulse of the journo’s they are supposed to mentor. To that I have no honest answer; there are too many murky facts in the open.

The PRESS fallout has been a long one and we are not there yet!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Media

Tagged as BBC, Blockheads, Claire Fox, Dragon story, freedom of speech, GCHQ, Guardian, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996, HIPAA, Leveson, Microsoft, Microsoft HealthVault, Minecraft, NSA, The Independent, Venturebeat

September 29, 2013 · 21:06

More than just Syria

The news has started to illustrate the issue I expected. I stated in my blog on September 20th “What we know about AQ is that they are about them and their needs“. That part is now coming to fruition. As ISIL they are now the third party in a civil war between two parties. My initial personal view is for President Assad and his opposition to come to an agreement and unite in a hunt for the members of ISIL/AQ, paving the way to some form of a seize fire.

Not doing so, will escalate this civil war in a plain hunt for lives who did not agree with the sharia convictions of ISIL/AQ. As Sky News now broadcasts how the victims of Syrian events are smuggled into Israeli Military Hospital where these victims are receiving lifesaving first aid and operations. A Samaritan act that will never be voiced by the victims they saved in fear of deadly reprisals. (At: http://news.sky.com/story/1147748/wounded-syrians-left-bleeding-with-the-enemy).

Isn’t it interesting that these so called Muslim ‘warriors’ are there just to ‘support’ one very specific version of Muslim faith. More important, the acts give weight to actually start open military intervention. In response to the article by the BBC (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23925037), which stand point I do support. We are now faced with their tactical blunder which we should exploit. This does however require the support of President Assad. My initial assessment is gaining weight, which was more on the side of the Russian stance that Assad was not the one firing the chemical weapons. As I had stated in my earlier blog, it would make sense that an AQ attack to draw America and Israel into this conflict was the fuse to a powder keg. As the initial attack did not happen, ISIL is now actively attacking ‘their’ enemies. When we consider the September 19th report by Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013_/09/19/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE98I0C120130919)

This ‘game’ had been about de-stabilisation from the very start. As stated by me “AQ only cares for AQ” and as such, any diplomatic option towards AQ should be classified as null and void.

Yet this will take orchestration of some size, yet as AQ made the mistake of getting too close to the Turkish border, the issues could change if any attack on Turkey commences. At that point the NATO members have no option but to come to the aid of Turkey, also, the Turkish President Abdullah Gul would gain massive support and popularity should it get forced into a direct conflict with AQ forces, now trying to overrun Syrian areas. These events also change the game in other ways. AQ has zero support from Russia (in light of their Chechnyan ‘friends’) and at this point the turning table exists for Iran. If they decide not to get involved, which would be fair enough, the end result remains the same; AQ would have to go it alone, with their former temporary friends as well as the Government forces of President Assad at their throats. The bottle neck comes as NATO/Turkey slam down the box in the final side. AQ will cause massive amounts of damage. That is unlikely to be prevented. This is also where I do not completely support the Guardian article by Sarah Margon (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/sarin-gas-syria-icc). The quote “Opposition forces have also committed serious abuses, increasingly resorting to executions and indiscriminate shelling of government-held areas.” might not be incorrect, but it might be incomplete. If AQ is part of the opposition, then we must see whether this was an actual act by what is called the ‘moderate’ opposition forces, or are these events the work of AQ and AQ minded opposition forces. So Syria is now clearly less clear cut. It is a civil war with three parties, each with their own agenda.

As such the question grows, why should we get involved? No matter how the Syrian civil war goes. If AQ is not dealt with, they will flame out wreaking havoc on both Jordan and Israel. In addition, AQ is pushing forward with pressures against Egyptian forces as well as attacks on Israel. Reuters reported yesterday the Sinai attack (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/28/us-egypt-sinai-idUSBRE98R09220130928). It will take massive amounts of discipline for Israel to keep their cool for now. Should the IDF face these attacks on the north side, as well as attacks on the Sinai Eilat side, then we, successful or not, will have to face the consequences. There are also financial repercussions. In a BBC newscast, from last November “This still means that as of Saturday night Israel had spent roughly $29m on interceptor missiles in three days.” The IDF has an Iron Dome presence, yet how much financial pressure is it under at present?

There is a linked view, which comes from the Heritage foundation, an American Think-tank. The article was by Baker Spring and Michaela Dodge. Baker is a Research Fellow in National Security Policy and Michaela is a Research Assistant for Missile Defense and Foreign Policy, so they do know their missiles. Their quote “Each Iron Dome Tamir interceptor costs more than $100,000 to produce. This is many times the cost of a Grad, Qassam, Katyusha-style rockets. But there is more to assessing the cost effectiveness of a defensive system such as Iron Dome than a simple calculation of the cost of an additional defensive interceptor compared to the cost of an additional offensive rockets.” is on target. Their assessment makes the issues not as clear cut, but what is clear is no matter which approach AQ is taking, Israel will feel tremendous pressures as these events drag on and they are not the only one.

Jordan is facing massive pressures through the Syrian refugees. The Guardian reported some of this (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/syrian-refugee-crisis-in-numbers-updated). This article is focussed on the numbers. It does mention the fact that Syria is short on roughly $2B to get anything done. What is less shown is that Jordan was never known for an abundance of resources, especially water. With an additional 3 million mouths to fill those resources will dwindle down to nil quite quickly. Consider that it will need an additional 2 million gallons of water a day, an amount that will run Jordan dry really fast. You can see how Jordan’s goose gets dry cooked. If these numbers mean little, then consider that with a water scarcity in place, their population due to refugees has grown by 50%, all because of the Syrian civil war. A possible solution would be if we could find some solution in Aqaba. It is not a quick solution, yet the option of running a pipeline from the Sinai through Eilat to Aqaba, giving all parties relief might be an option. As that part of the Sinai is in MFO buffer zone C, and if both Egypt and Israel would agree on it, then there would be an accessible place that is in ‘neutral’ space for now, allowing relief to both Israel and Jordan as they are trying to deal with water shortages for the Syrian refugees. This option might also allow for some agricultural solutions, which would deal with the long term issues that will pop up. The AQ would have to be hunted out of the Sinai, but in that regard both Israel and Egypt agree.

Why there? If that region is to have any future, then anything we start now; any action that allows for a growth of tourism in that region, like a second Sharm-El-Sheik, but next to (or close to) Eilat, could in time be the financial infuse that could grow that region to some level of prosperity. Europe and America are now in a low curve, but it will not stay that way. In addition, as tourism grows business. This option has all the makings for finding a long term peaceful solution. It could become an option which will always be a better one than non-stop flooding the region with money and goods.

In my mind (oversimplified, I admit), I see this as a solution. The Dutch are massive experts in Greenhouses. Consider that these are build close to a water plant in the Sinai, Around Eilat, Israel and close to Aqaba, Jordan. So if we can get the water there, in some form, but likely via tankers, there could be an actual push for peaceful reform. We need to get food there in several ways. Finding a way to grow some of it will down the track be the cheapest and it would start real change.

Even though this Powder keg known as the Middle East has been lit and AQ is the fuse, would it not be the master of all Ironies if Al-Qaeda becomes the glue that actually sets in place some lasting form of peace? As, whoever is running Al Qaeda, faces a possible future where a peaceful Middle Eastern alliance develops with Israel as an accepted partner by all and it was thanks to AQ. Would the howling laughter of people not drive him (or her) insane?

Graveyards and politicians both love irony in equal measure, let’s make it so!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as America, AQ, Aqaba, Baker Spring, BBC, Chechnya, Dutch Greenhouses, Eilat, Grad rocket, Guardian, Heritage Foundation, IDF, Iron Dome, ISIL, ISIS, Israel, Jordan, Katyusha-style, MFO, Michaela Dodge, NATO, President Abdullah Gul, President Assad, Qassam rocket, reuters, Sarah Margon, seize fire, Sinai, Sky News, tactical blunder, Tamir Interceptor, Turkey, www bbc co uk

September 23, 2013 · 13:31

What lies beneath!

Today is the day we get to take a look at those who get and those who did not receive an Emmy. This is a remarkable year for it. Not because of the winners and non-winners, but from my personal view on the quality of TV shows. There was little way for me to predict the winners in this year. This is not a year where there is a clear winner. They were so many amazing shows and some of them blew away their own fans. So whether we cheer for 30 Rock, Louis, Nurse Jackie or Glee, or even all of them. 2013 shows that the audience won in a very big way. If the bad economy brings out creativity then no one can afford to miss the 2014 Emmy’s as true creativity is just around the corner.

Talking about the economy, is there any news? Well, today, not unlike the Emmy’s the UK is facing issues like vetting the spending by labour, Ed Milliband does not tolerate backstabbing and George Osborne is facing Scepticism over the multi-billion pound sale of Lloyds Banking Group.

So as we are in the sphere of the Emmy, considering that soon there will be the Tony for theatre and the BAFTA and Academy awards for the cinema, here is the Churchill Award. This golden statue shows us Churchill in a thick winter coat and a cigar. Like the image we had of this great man during WW2. We should not confuse the statue with a Hitchcock or any other drama figure. Here we ‘award’ the politician.

So in good standing, the Churchill award for political events goes to (wait for it)……

Nigel Farage of UKIP!

Surprised? Angry?

Let me elaborate. I am not on his side. I remain for now a conservative. Yet, when we watch the news in triviality, where not unlike the issues in Australia Labour seems to be in power struggle after power struggle we wonder why we should support a party where the bickering of being in control takes so much energy and time of a party. Now I am all in favour of a Milliband labour with the bedroom tax gone. Yet, how will certain measures be made with a trillion plus in deficits? Similar warning in regards to the squabbling was reported by BBC’s Justin Parkinson as he recouped the words by Dave Prentis.

The second player, ‘my’ preferred side David Cameron was accused of bringing back more of the ‘nasty’. That is not a bad thing (still highly uncomfortable). I agree that costs have to be cut, yet for now he has not gotten a hold on their spending. In addition his peer in parliament George Gideon Oliver Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer did not help much. Yes, on his watch the economy is slightly better. However, if we give weight to the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/22/first-signs-recovery-despite-austerity-george-osborne) it was not his victory. William Keegan has his ducks more than just in a row and as such this article has weight. Still, the UK could have done a lot worse. Heavily against the conservatives is the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (aka bedroom tax). I always thought of this as a bad move. Especially, in a time and age, where the UK housing shortage is massive and no one can afford to move or change apartment. Nailing these people to their empty bedroom (or cupboard with bed) is just not the way cricket should be played.

So we see the winner Nigel Farage. I consider this man to be dangerous. His ideas are out there and the consequences of moving away from Europe will hurt the UK economy in ways we still cannot foresee. Still the idea of a flat tax approach has merit. When we consider the Stemcor’s of the world (or in this case, just the UK) the umbrella options and other small little twinkles that give the wealth more deductibility’s then the average welfare person many wonder. The fact that he gets stigmatised on matters seem to work positive for him as well.

Still, the plays he plans should he ever get to number 10 will hurt the UK in ways many of his voter will not realise until it is too late. He speaks to those losing much, to those in economic hardship, ever willing to blame anyone else, even if no one (bankers excluded) is to blame.

The man has the charisma and he has the drive, people react to that and in the end, all sheep plenty and few will follow the herder that gives them the best music (even if he is sitting next to a blowing volcano). If the others do not change their ways then my initial prediction from my previous blog (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/05/04/ukip-or-u-k-i-p-ur-kiddin-i-presume) will come to be true. Labour and Conservatives on the same opposition side of the isle. That would be one hell of a show to get tickets to.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as BBC, Bedroom Tax, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill, Conservatives, Dave Prentis, David Cameron, Ed Milliband, Emmy Awards, George Osborne, Justin Parkinson, Labour, Lloyds Banking Group, Nigel Farage, Number 10, Stemcor, UKIP, Welfare Reform Act 2012, William Keegan

September 12, 2013 · 03:13

Foreign and Domestic

America is under attack. The question becomes whether this is a new one, or one that has been ongoing. There are several thoughts and they all, too some extent link together.

FOREIGN
The foreign groups ‘attacking’ America include both China and Russia. They are both using to some extent their own puppets. Let us call them Syria and Iran for now. Russia’s pulling the strings of Iran. No matter how the strings are pulled, no matter how acts are ‘begotten’, the issue is that Iran has been given the one carrot it cannot ignore. It is the support to get a nuclear power plant placed within Iran. Russia gets a string of benefits; this includes making America look bad, making their claims fall short, which according to the speakers in the Kremlin will look pretty good on the front page of Izvestiya (Известия). China is now giving support to Syria as Syria in a last moment of desperation plays the ‘oversight on my Chemical Romance stockpile’ card. The question becomes, whether it is just last minute, or certain cards were offered during the G20 to be played, because any of this, must seemingly be cast on making the US President to not look bad (the view projected after the fact will be an entirely different issue).

To support certain new options goes decently further than just the ad-hoc statement by United States Secretary of State John Kerry. These issues have been playing for some time and most issues started to accelerate as we all saw in the news. Many of the top tier papers reported these events. So how come that these events are still seen as a foreign attack?

That would be a fair question!

China and Russia had been blocking many of the events needed to make any stance against the indecent slaughter of the people of Syria (on both sides). I could cleverly state that Russia and China removed the ‘s’ and used laughter to block the US and other nations to get anything done there. The fact that the Bushehr plant is announced to get a new baby brother as reported by Polina Garaev “Putin will present Rohani with new deal worth $800 million for new batch of S-300, construction of new nuclear reactor at Bushehr” gives additional weight on the Iranian ‘support voice’ in regards to the Syrian question. Whether this will become the Alice Cooper nightmare remains to be seen, it is however clear that the S-300 additions do mean that they fear the response by Israel towards this new billion dollar baby. Trust me when I say that there will be well beyond $200 million in additional fees for consultancy, education and other requirements. The one part I do like about this all is that Iran seems to not trust their own propaganda on the ‘advanced’ Mershad from 2010 and prefers to rely on solid Russian technology as it was developed in 1978 (sometimes life throws you a nice juicy steak to blog about). Still, if Israel cannot get there via the air, I think I have found a way to super charge the fuel rods to melt them down all by themselves (pretty much stopping both reactors from ever working again). It should take only three elements and I got the idea from a snow globe, go figure!

All four players in this parade are anti-American; their union is not because they like one another, but because of their individual needs united in non-American likes. That does not make for an attack. That does not mean they are attacking America. That part had been shown in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800, which is only one of many newscasts on that topic. In addition there is http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/new-us-envoy-to-un-strongly-condemns-russia.html. This could be seen as a first level of evidence that the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) was nothing more than a political tool to stop any kind of condemnation and the lowest forms of support for the victims of the chemical attack.

Are there doubts?

Yes, even though some claims came that there was ‘evidence’, I am still having certain doubts in regards to the actual attacker. When a State secretary goes on a world tour visiting heads of state showing ‘secret’ evidence, parts are not right. It is shown to a group that is too large. Instead of giving it all to the media letting EVERYONE publish it would have been a much better policy, it could have had the result that the UK would have been in favour of actions. The delays, the Intel that WOULD have been there from those big boxes high in the sky, (commonly known as satellites), could have shown much of the evidence. Yet, personally, I am not completely convinced that they were attacks ordered by Assad (directly or indirectly), which I admit is a personal view and based on gut feeling more then anything else. Is it possible that some misguided Assad supporter did this? Yes, that is a definite possibility. I dealt with these thoughts in a previous blog called ‘tactical choices of inactivity‘. I have always believed that Al-Qaeda is only about Al-Qaeda and their goals. It was never about Syria for them (I personally believe this). The theatre of war in play gives them ample opportunity to get to USA and Israel. There is a chance that the number of military opposition leaders, who knew about chemical caches seems larger than most considered, which means that others knew too. This entire new play is as I see it is not about the fear from Syria AND Russia that unwanted elements might want to get things going out of hand. It is likely that this is already the case and a USA offensive would stop any chance of that part getting a certain level of control. It could be that this danger is in play, meaning that both Russia and Syria want to get out of the way fast, allowing the new diplomatic play to proceed, whist the US gets left holding the bag.

No matter how this plays out in any diplomatic way. We will see soon enough that Syrian victims will get overly victimised soon enough with added by-lines on how America never intervened.

DOMESTIC
In my view, I see that the domestic enemy of America seems to fit into three distinct categories. First of all, this is not about lone wolf terrorists, or any terrorist groups, they fall in the foreign enemy group. No, the Americans do not get to be that lucky as such.

The first enemy group are those libertarians hiding behind ‘freedom of information‘. This group is for the most the direct one we see, receiving all kinds of media support and protection. They do not need to fear the House of Lords and some Leveson report, but they do ‘fear’ what the NSA had been doing. The electronic Frontier foundation did instigate a case which they won. Sky News covered this at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=905204. My issue is the quote “as part of the agency’s effort to track potential terror plots”

In my mind, when (not if) the next attack on America succeeds, then the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) should MANDATORY in the light of ‘freedom of information’ reveal the names of all their supporters in this case to the family members of the victims the next attack has. There will be no carefully phrased denials; there will be no talk about ‘we so sorry’. I want to see those names clearly shown on-line. In addition, the EFF board members John Perry Barlow, Brian Behlendorf, John Buckman et al will have to visit all the funerals of those victims and look the survivors and family members of the deceased straight in the eyes. I wonder how ‘ideological’ they will feel at that time. Interesting that they (as far as I could tell) have not been too active in protecting people from places like Microsoft and others when we see articles like http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/

That is another matter, which is ALL about personal gain (by those corporations) and not about keeping the American people safe. Another article is http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/13/gamers-fear-microsofts-xbox-one-could-be-future-of-prism-after-nsa-revelations, I do not agree with that article. That is not about some PRISM project, it is about Microsoft making sure that Microsoft gets more and others less. That is about greed and spawning INACTIVITY to the future new developers (unless it is in the hands of Microsoft). With gaming as a hundred billion dollar market, and as the gamers market surpassed the porn industry as a revenue group, did you expect these events not to happen?

I personally see the EFF as a sanctimonious group at best, of course others have their own view which are quite opposite of mine and as such they are very welcome to have that view, because I do believe in freedom of speech. I do have an issue with it when you endanger the safety of a nation.

The second group are the economic leprechauns (‘leper cons’ might be a better term). These are not the good and fiddledy diddledy types walking around with a cauldron of 100 gold coins. These are greed driven monsters in need of more and more at the expense of everything and everyone. They will enable their voice to whatever keeps them playing the game. The attack on Syria would have meant that their profits go down, so they would do whatever they could to stop it by forcing a diplomatic solution view. It seems such a humane view, yet, they will avoid taxation by moving funds offshore, they avoid taxation by becoming a virtual entity and they will prolong their game by removing your rights and your future. I personally believe that in many cases banks are on that side too. Did you forget on how in the lowest moments over 3.5% of mortgages are added to the foreclosure listings? Why are THEY a domestic enemy of America? Are sound business strategies suddenly outlawed? No, they are not, yet there have been too much personal and corporate gain preferences in the past and war is usually bad for business, unless you sell ammunition. In that regard my words might seem to be empty in the view of certain people, yet consider that America is an ideal by the people and for the people. How come that those views are so often drowned out by corporate greed, to give view to what is good for corporations and their stakeholders?

The third group is the most dangerous of all, it is a wild-card called ‘the self-centred person’. They are traitors, manipulators, journalists and/or politicians. The reader could even see me as one of these types of people. This group is dangerous as they could also be members of the first or second group. Yet, whilst wearing one of the other two cloaks they are only in it for the good of self. Edward Snowden falls in this group. Too much ‘evidence’ showed that he was all in it for himself. This was never about freedom of information or the security of America, it was about his life style, his future, his fortune and he was so willing to sell America down the drain in the process. The evidence? If that was truly about some level of honour, he would never have gone to Hong Kong or Russia. Several countries do not have an extradition treatment with USA, the fact that he ran to nations who are direct opposed to the American way of life should be seen in that light. Bradley Manning basically does not fit this group very well. There is a valid concern that he was misguided in his choices, when the choice was there he just gave it all away to Wiki-Leaks. In the smallest of defence of Manning, it seems that he at least was never out for personal gain; his ideology was, as I see it utterly misguided, which makes him the odd duck out. The recipients were however very willing to push his buttons for what they believed was a ‘righteous cause’, manipulative steps to say the least.

The problem with my own view (I will admit to that), is that my view has evolved from information given to me from journalistic and other sources, whilst I know that many in this ‘game’ have their own agenda to maintain. That means that it is about a target they have. The time of truly neutral journalism has been over for some time and I fear it will never return, which makes for an interesting view of the first amendment. The freedom of speech would become the freedom of representation of those we service, because the board of directors in a media group are often linked to other endeavours, making their freedom of speech a lesser item.

America is in my humble opinion under attack, and Syria is just the new stage where the American chess pieces are about to be moved, whilst some of them will be removed. I wonder where we all stand on the 1st of January 2014. That date will be soon upon us and that view might partially depend on the steps the growing New World Order coalition of Russia, China and India will take.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as Al-Qaeda, BBC, Bradley Manning, Brian Behlendorf, Bushehr, China, Известия, Edward Snowden, EFF, India, Iran, Israel, Izvestiya, John Buckman, John Kerry, John Perry Barlow, Manning, Mershad, Middle East, NSA, nuclear power plant, Polina Garaev, politics, Putin, Rohani, Russia, S-300, Syria, syria and iran, tactical choices of inactivity, United Nation Security Council, United States Secretary of State, UNSC, USSR

August 30, 2013 · 14:23

Tactical choices of inactivity

I reckon that many are awaiting the events as they are unfolding currently in Syria. Will we be investing in Boeing Defence stock, should these missiles be used? (At $1.2M a pop that would mean a nice increase of revenue for Boeing). Will we change our investments in oil and gas as the Syrian situation continues?

These are the questions that matter. The hundreds of deaths because of a chemical attack do not seem to matter.

Are you wondering why I have that opinion?

Then read the BBC quote in regards to these attacks. “The United Nations Security Council said it was necessary to clarify what happened in the alleged attack, but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team currently in Damascus, following an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening.” This was published on August 21st. So there was a chemical attack and the UNSC did NOT demand the immediate investigation in regards to chemical attack deaths. The worse matter was that the bulk of the casualties were all civilians.

But where is the case of what matters?

If we look at the UNSC charter we see the following “The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.”

So clinically we see that they are not an issue. Peace was not an issue in Syria at all. It stopped existing well over two years earlier. The UNSC is set in a charter. They are called the “Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council” (at http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/rules.pdf). They actually do not help that much, only to illustrate certain steps. Yet, this is about the procedures of the UNSC, this will not help at all. So where is their decision making tree? For that we need to take a look at the charter of the United Nations. I took a specific look at Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.

The premeditated crux is set in Article 45 which states: “In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.”

So we need to look at Article 43, which actually does not help us that much. That part is about making available troops “in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security“. I think we can agree that that part is at least two years late, and nothing here gives us a pass to start anything AFTER chemical attacks.

Yet we see in that same chapter that Article 51 (partially shown) states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” This is all very nice, but Syria is not a member state, which makes this all a little moot. In addition, this is a civil (local) war, so other member states are not in question.

So let’s take a look at ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules‘ (at http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf).

Rule 11 states “Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Even the rules of war have some level of distinction, yet for the most; this is all based on the previous Article 51, as is quoted “The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.” Darn! I am caught in some sort of looped program. It reminds me of my very first program I wrote on the Commodore VIC-20 in 1983.

10 PRINT “You are crazy!”
20 GOTO 10
RUN

Ah! The simple old days, how I miss them at times.

The same book lists an interesting part on page 38. “several States invoked the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks in their assessment of whether an attack with nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law.⁹ When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syria) replied favourably.¹⁰”

⁹ See. e.g., the pleadings of Australia (ibid., § 65), India (ibid., § 77), Mexico (ibid., § 85), New Zealand (ibid., § 86) and United States (ibid., § 99).
¹⁰ See ICRC, The International Committee’s Action in the Middle East (ibid., § 139).

Yes, I agree that a chemical attack is not a nuclear attack, yet when I was taught the elements of NBC (in army days long ago), we tended to count the Nuclear and the Chemical similar to some extent. The Biological element is one that might be considered to be one worse than that as it can continue its damage and even transcend borders.

So we can now add a look at additional protocol I, especially as Syria was one of the parties who replied favourably. As such, we could see Syria as a party that accepted these rules (to some extent).

You see, these parts underline the part as set in Rule 13 (from the IHL), which states “Rule 13. Attacks by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.”

This my dear readers includes ANY level of chemical attack, as that form of attack that is utterly indiscriminate as well as encompassing the area as one military objective.

Taking into account these elements, why did at that point did the UNSC, as stated by the BBC in the first mentioned article “but stopped short of demanding“. The stopped short in these elements were utterly unwarranted, in my humble opinion.

Now we all watch a political runaway train disaster where politicians stop short of acting in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and France await ‘evidence’ which they can deal on. The one cowboy state (the United States) would be at present the only hope the Syrian population has for now. Are these nations correct in holding of? Well, they do have a case there. However, the evidence as UN investigators were delayed, the possible evidence on how the chemical spread started. If we take the elements we have, then we need to consider the firing mechanism. That part had been made near impossible with 5 days of bombings. Yet, in all honesty, did Assad do this? The question is important for two reasons.

1. If he did not do this, was it an intentional act?
2. What other intelligence has Assad silenced?

The two are related, because the earlier fear the US had is now truly coming to fruition. If these missiles were inadvertently fired by the opposition forces, the theory I have is that as they lack military expertise, they might have known and partially learned how to fire a SCUD, but did they know about the payload? Let us not forget that many fighters are anything but military trained. Even those who had training, it is possible that they had too limited knowledge on how to work and identify these types of equipment.

The danger is that they might have found chemical payloads, so here is the danger. Al-Qaeda is currently helping the opposition forces. We now have a trained AQ with support from people lacking knowledge, and they gave AQ access to a chemical storage area. Here is where it becomes dicey! Assad knows the assets lost, he is playing high stakes poker by keeping these locations a secret. For him it is a win-win. If the opposition figures it out they have a time-bomb they cannot use. AQ will use it no matter what and preferably on Israel. Whichever of those steps happened (when they do), the world would have no option but to remove his enemy for him.

Proving that Assad did the actual firing is almost non-provable. The evidence is scattered and at best we can see that NBC components were used, but by whom is less of an option which will leave doubt.

Time is on the side of Assad and elements stopping activities to attack, whether justified or not will only strengthen Assad’s position. I can side with the politicians when they claim that they do not want another Iraq, yet when we look at the initial quote from the BBC “but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team” we must more actively wonder what it would take for them to get anything done. It should be seen as tactical inactivity of the very worst kind!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as Al-Qaeda, AQ, Assad, BBC, charter of the united nations, Chemical attacks, Chemical warfare, Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules, Damascus, ICRC, Middle East, politics, Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, Syria, UN, United Nations, United Nations Security Council, UNSC, VIC-20

July 3, 2013 · 17:18

The Age of ‘no retirement left’ is coming

Another day and another play for one of the last foundations of wealth. As the Dutch NOS news reported, the Dutch pension funds are willing to invest in its own country. The Netherlands is currently an investment location that is receiving a very small part of that fat fund. Yet, pension funds want a level of government guarantee for these risky investments at present. That guarantee will save them for a certain amount of losses should they occur. As such the government has a level of objections. As the news reported, this plan has been a year in the making. Basically the pensions will be doing all the tasks banks are supposed to do. There is a level of risk that the pensions are not willing to carry at present. And why should they?

The reporter Jeroen van Dommelen stated “the government does not have the funds to invest, it is poor“. This is part of all the mayhem and issues on play. When the government could have stepped on the plate, they refused to do so. They pushed the bills forward. They relied on certain numbers of bettering the economy. A game played since 2006. And every time the Dutch CBS, which has government stakes and are prone to certain levels of censoring presented them. Those numbers have been downgraded quarter after quarter and as such no issues were resolved. Now this government is pretty much at the edge of viable as they received invoices from past administrations, and now, the one cauldron of cash that remains, and needs to be kept safe is being tapped on. This is not a cauldron where money renews (you know that realistic 100 coin leprechaun model), no it is like a simple soup cauldron, what is taken out, is lost forever. Starting a grab from that last cauldron that keeps an entire generation fed is not acceptable. It is too dangerous. When there were options, we were not allowed to touch it. Now that there are no options they want to touch it against our wishes and diminish it?

This is why pensions what the government to accept levels of losses, and why the buck is not passed forward, but to another person. Why should these funds be used to renovate rental properties? The rental agencies have been making a killing, or at least bosses in these places were. As examples we have the Amsterdam Rochdale scandal (Source, Dutch Parool http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/1284/Affaire-Rochdale/index.dhtml). The Rotterdam corporation PWS, where fraud was a massive tool to offset the rental market (source: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2680/Economie/article/detail/766332/2006/02/10/Baas-PWS-ontslagen-om-fraude.dhtml). The examples do not even end there. The issues of preferential treatment and other calamities have given these issues a bad taste. In this environment there are grounds for calling the risk of these investments too high, in addition, these expensive dwellings should be providing for its own invested renovations. None of that seemed to have been happening. If we would investigate the issues as the Dutch SHC is investigated in 2011, where fraud was a factor, then we see that these events led to fusions which ended several steps, including in my humble opinion the prosecution of several people. The fusion left Miss Hedy van de Berk in charge after 25 years of service to clean up a mess her predecessors left. She had to lean on ‘lessons learned’ and interesting that Councillor for the City of Rotterdam Hamit Karakus (US equivalent of Alderman), who was present at that meeting seems not to have been that vocal on certain issues. This is not an accusation towards either, yet the foundation of pushing forward seems to be a clear given, and as such investments with retirement funds should be classified as a definite risk. As such we should wonder why these funds have to chip in in the first place. When we look at the responses from Henk Knoop (VVD) as MP of economic affairs, we see that he makes a clear good case where politicians want to make it more interesting to invest in Dutch events. I personally have the view that risk factors currently remain too high and until certain guarantees are added until there is clear evidence that sound investments are proven to be sound investments, the current level of risk should be considered too high.

The fact remains that they want certain levels of guarantees from Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem. His view is that returns are founding certain levels of risk. This is a fair and realistic view. The issue that many have in this regard is that the risks are unrealistically given. That view has weight if we accept the faltering views SNS Reaal brought forward as it needed to be nationalised. Those are levels of lost investments, especially in commercial enterprises that are too unacceptable. Until those issues are resolved and dealt with, it seems that retirement funds have no business in a field with so much risk.

In addition the message by Jeroen van Dommelen at the end stating “resolving these issues would give way that on the day of princes there will also be good news” is way too thin to base the risk of retirement funds on. For the non-Dutch, the day of princes is on the third Tuesday in September when the Dutch government through a royal speech announces the new annual budget.

These dangers are not just visible in the Netherlands, yet in a place where they have been one of the most secure in Europe, the fall-back might be larger than anywhere else. In the UK, there is the case that Simon Cox of BBC4 reported on in regards to the pension liberation scheme last March. (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21844955)

The options for those before retirement could access some of this cash. The issue is not just whether people select this, it is about the dangers that the acts comprises. What people do not realise is that a person’s retirement is mostly built in the last 5 years of ones funds. At that time, the interest is so rewarding that those years are the days when a retirement almost doubles making it a good thing (read enough to survive on). To lower these amounts, means that people either work a few additional years, or fall short by a chunk of what they would need. So it is a danger one should not consider. My thoughts are not as full on extreme as those of Shaun Richards of “Mindful Money”. He is more into the question whether an economic war between the saving retirees and the youthful left with nothing (something according to those lines). I do not think it is that far, yet, the greedy and their prying eyes on those untapped resources are out there, so there are dangers. His story makes for a good read, so check it out at http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/is-there-a-danger-of-an-economic-war-between-pensioners-and-the-young-in-the-uk/

If there is one note of criticism from my side on this article then it is the focal view as he looked at the groups, yet outliers from those groups and whether they moved from one group to another is slightly ignored, so a possible factor of skewing from those evading the credit crunch and those who got pushed out into destitution all together seemed to have been ignored, that group might have remained too small (however, still unillustrated).

His views should not be discarded. It seems to me that his views are partially adopted by Peter Hain of the Guardian (alternative is that they came to similar conclusions). Peter was quite adamant on the loss of cohesion as he describes it. Where I disagree is the Nick Clegg view where the better off retirees should ‘abolish’ their tax benefits. Is that fair? Those who remained cautious are now better off, whilst those who ‘partied on’ need additional support. I see no reason for those who did give out those extra few bobs to benefit now should give that up again. The social structure is all good and fine, yet those who did not keep their responsible part are now, as should be suffering a little more. A model was long term agreed upon, as today’s irresponsible spending’s should not be charged to those who got charged and worked all their lives. This is where ‘the Clegg principle’ falls short in my view. Peter’s words strike goal at the end where he writes “Cutting or means-testing pensioners allowances risks turning young against old and rich against poor while making negligible savings for the Treasury“. That is a risk we should not allow. Not because of the unfairness of this, but for the risk that the young will allow the exploiting of funds that should not be touched. In the end it is not just a negligible saving for the treasury, there is every indication that this will propel certain additional costs forward. Especially considering that these costs could have been avoided all together.

These issues also raise a few questions when we look at the Swedish system. A system protected by government and is totally untouchable by people until they retire. This quote came from the Swedish national bank this year. The question on the safety of retirements as such what return on investment has been achieved. the statement was “The major Swedish banks’ liabilities in US dollar amounted to just over SEK 1,600 billion at the end of 2012. Approximately 20 per cent of these liabilities consist of deposits, above all from large non-financial and non-bank financial companies.” So at 1.6 trillion Kronor, the outsourced risk that adds up to almost to SEK 226,000 for every Swedish citizen, all those funds in one investment? That looks like a very dangerous investment indeed, as that makes it the bulk of all the retirement investments all in one fund. When I look at my Swedish retirement savings then I have seen it go up by less than 5% annually (because I have annual costs, but I no longer live in Sweden and therefor no longer add to it). So what dangers are there for retirement investments all over Europe? France is in a peril no less dangerous, especially as President Hollande is asking the retirees to fill the French Coffers. Perhaps he will add a “s’il vous plait” (‘please’ in French) to that request at the end, but the message is rather clear. (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/france-pension-reforms-hollande_n_2810024.html)

There is a European issue with retirement incomes, and it seems that the push it forward routine, as I started with in the beginning of this blog has been a blanket policy for many nations. Should they blame former president Nicolas Sarkozy? He tried to up the age of retirement by 2 years. I do not think it is fair (mainly because dangers were not reported in time). Not unlike the Dutch system as I mentioned in previous blogs. The push-it-forward routine has been employed for too long in several nations.

These retirees all worked hard until they retired. The fact that the younger generation holds those to account and not those who refused to act is unfair. We should add the question on issues that banks had like rogue trader Jérôme Kerviel. A person who decreased French bank values by almost 5 billion Euros. Even though he was convicted and he was supposed to pay this back. How much was actually paid back? Was all this money returned? It is so tearful to somehow this poor poor man has lost it all. Did he? He never owned 5 billion, so it was not his to lose. So if we see all these international trading shortfalls in France, UK, Netherlands, Italy and a few other nations (I reported on those issues in previous blogs). Those sums are more than the combined retirement funds that are about to get endangered. I think these governments should get those coins back before they go after the somewhat defenceless retirement funds.

Still today governments are setting out costs that they cannot foot the bill for. To now address retirement funds is an unacceptable step. Consider the initial Dutch version were in their own admission plans had been in the making for one year. Look at cutbacks that have not yet been met. These events show clearly that these events should have been stopped yesterday, whilst allowing them tomorrow has every realistic view that they could leave the entire upcoming retiring generation destitute.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as BBC, CBS, Guardian, Hamit Karakus, Hedy van de Berk, Henk Knoop, Hollande, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Jeroen van Dommelen, Mindful Money, Nick Clegg, Nicolas Sarkozy, NOS, Parool, Peter Hain, President Hollande, Shaun Richards, Simon Cox, SNS Reaal, VVD

May 1, 2013 · 21:14

Another banking issue

People might have read a previous blog where I discussed the issues involving LIBOR and a resolution donation of over half a billion dollars of fines by the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Today’s article by Jill Treanor of the guardian at “http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/01/vince-cable-rbs-prosecutions” gives notice of issues at play. Moreover, these issues have been at play for some time now and there is clear need for answers on several levels. The article mentions the issues as quoted: ‘Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have been reviewing whether a case can be brought against any former directors since January 2012‘.
So, it seems that this investigation has been going on for 15 months. A letter was written to Lord Wallace in this matter. My question would be the why it is taking his Lordship the Advocate General of Scotland this long?

There is no doubt in my mind that it is a complex issue, yet overall, when it comes to banking issues, too often the public perceives this as the ‘out of sight, out of mind ploy’. The fact that this is the second bank involved in the LIBOR scandal and the fact that the fines are currently sailing close to 1 billion pounds in the UK alone, visibility should not wane for years to come.

This is not (just) about LIBOR. This entire issue is about the investigation into the directors who were in office at the time of the 2008 bailout. So, this is about a case 5 years old and this case seems to have only started in 2012 and now 15 months later there is still no final answer. This is interesting as the UK has the Limitation Act 1980. This statute has different limitations for different crimes, yet many of them is set at 6 years. This means that if defence can twist it that these crimes would fall under one of those statutes then prosecution has a lot less than 1 year left to take a stance and get started. The fact that these issues are still not for prosecution with the CPS are an additional matter of question.

If we look at the Limitation act and we consider this to be a tort, then Part 1, section 2 states: “2. An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. (Time limit for actions founded on tort)“.

The same time limit applies to actions founded on simple contract. The interesting question becomes where these issues are founded on. Is mismanagement a wrongful act, and there for a Tort? Are these wrongful actions and forms of mismanagement breach of contract?

Yet, we should not despair. There is a wise addition in this act that is stated in section 32 of that same act, which deals with ‘Fraud, concealment and mistake‘. Hip, hip, hurrah!
There it states “the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”

So we might have a little more time left. Yet, we should not…. how is that expression again? ‘Dilly dally’. Yes, that was it. My grandmother told me that more than once. So we should not dilly dally to find the answers whether we have a case against those directors, lest we forgot that time ran out.

So you see, I am not convicting them, but I do want to see a case brought to trial where they can either be convicted, or where they can submit evidence that would exonerate them. Either will be the case, yet no case means there will not be any answers forthcoming. This would be interestingly unfair as that bank gave the taxpayer an additional cost of 45 BILLION pounds to the taxpayer. If you are from the UK and reading this then you should ask yourself. Did you make your GBP 666 donation to the save the Royal Bank of Scotland funds? Will you? If not then we should figure out what happened and get this to trial. Considering that the UK has a 1 trillion dollar deficit, then the added debt is costing its citizens GBP 225 million each year in interests. That is almost 3.5 pounds per citizen each year just to keep that part of the debt on par.

So yes, it is interesting to read the article by Jill Treanor. It is also interesting that she was not the only one to mention it; similar articles could be read in the independent, the Telegraph and on the website of the BBC. It seems to me that this is not some political ploy as both MP Vince Cable (Twickenham) and Lord Wallace (Shetland) both seem to be Liberal Democrats, unless Mr Cable prefers Shetland over Twickenham.

The Guardian refers to the report of April on Banking Standards. The report was described to be enthusiastically damning. In another fine piece of writing by Jill Treanor at: “http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/04/bankers-brought-down-hbos” is one sentence that I found ….hmmm, ‘hilarious’ just does not describe that sinking feeling in me. The sentence was “Under pressure from parliament Goodwin’s pension was halved to £340,000“. Are you guys for flipping real? My total pension will never even come close to that amount as a total sum. If there was ever a case of evidence that incompetence pays, then that would be the evidence at hand.

This gives way to a quote in a book by Robert L. Bradley it states: “The businessman who refuses to acknowledge, despite clear evidence, that his facilities are out-dated, his product uncompetitive and his cash flow inadequate, is dishonest just as the one who makes fraudulent claims to the customers is dishonest. Both are trying, at the deepest level, to fake reality.” (Bradley,‘Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy’,2009,p.66).

I think with this quote he hits the nail on the head for a truckload of cases. He also shows a graphical bar of difference between incompetence and prosecutable fraud, whilst showing unethical behaviour and Philosophic fraud somewhere on the trajectory. This book is actually quite the little gem where they look at more than just ENRON and a few other devious little greed seekers. It even takes time to discuss the UK and ‘the Coal panic’ of 1865. So keep this book in mind please, it is a diamond in its own right.

So even though we get into the ‘Cloak and Kegger’ mindset that it is not a crime to be incompetent, then there is still the need to assure ourselves of a situation where those people do not run places like banks and corporate enterprises. Financial Services Authority (FSA) was supposed to have handled issues and cases, yet the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards seems to show a lack of actions on several levels. That committee on their web page reflected “The regulators also have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to their role earlier in the HBOS debacle. From 2004 up until the latter part of 2007, the FSA was ‘not so much the dog that did not bark as the dog barking up the wrong tree’”

From my view I wonder whether the regulator realised they were indeed the fore mentioned dog, whether they realised what a tree was and whether it ended up eating a bone instead.

The commission report which can be read at: “http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201213/jtselect/jtpcbs/144/144.pdf” leaves us with another question that requires serious visible pondering by the press on several levels too. If we consider the issues of HBOS (20 billion) and RBS (45 billion) and the consequent fines that followed over the timeline until now then there are serious questions on those getting an income from the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Here comes the kicker! “and was funded entirely by fees charged to the financial services industry.” So basically we have a group that was not biting the hand that feeds them. How was this ever a good idea?

As per April 1st (no joke) its responsibilities have been split between two new agencies, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority at the Bank of England.

If we see what has happened here on several levels, it seems to me that self-regulation has failed on a massive scale. Both the Banking and Press industry seems to have scuttled justice, fairness and ethics on many levels and at many places. The question is not how they can restore their integrity; the question should be ‘Why are they presently allowed a place on the negotiation table in the first place?’

This brings me back to the bars as displayed by Robert L. Bradley. In my mind the distance between incompetence and prosecutable Fraud needs to be a lot smaller then I am currently comfortable with and the buffer called Unethical behaviour is a buffer zone that should be nothing more than a mere hairline. From those parts I wonder why massive visible and noisy steps have not yet taken place to remove options of self-regulation in several places at present.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as BBC, Coal Panic, CPS, ENRON, Financial Conduct Authority, Financial Services Authority, FSA, Goodwin, Guardian, HBOS, Jill Treanor, LIBOR, Limitation Act 1980, Lord Wallace, Prudential Regulation Authority, RBS, Robert L. Bradley, Shetland, Twickenham, UK Parliament, Vince Cable

May 1, 2013 · 18:01

The brutal end of an old man

We all have moments we are not proud of, we all have moments when something hits us and we do not realise it that it came, even though we were not involved or responsible. This happened to me this morning when I got my daily dose of Sky News at 05:00. Mr Mohammed Saleem Chaudry was stabbed to death less than 4 metres from his home in Birmingham. I remember Birmingham; it is a nice looking city. When I was there (I only saw it once) the city looked decently clean with plenty of pedestrian areas. One could say that it is a nice looking town. I visited the Walkabout and I had a gator tail steak. The last is hilarious, because I NEVER ate that in Australia. For football (soccer) fans there is the warning that this city is loaded with Ashton Villa fans, but what city is perfect nowadays. 😉

So, I have seen the place, and even though we see issues in every place we are, I feel happy that I am sensitive enough that the murder of this old man gets to me. He is described as an old man, walking with a cane on his way home from the Mosque. Is this an anti-Muslim attack? Was it just a drunk or doped up idiot not knowing what he was doing? All this is sheer speculation and I think it should be left up to investigators to find out what had happened and I hope they will find out with or without the assistance of crime stoppers (whose information had been added to the Sky News newscast).

Yet, there is a sense of fear that this is just the beginning. Is this all linked to the Six extremists who decided to attack the EDL? They failed because the rally ended early. Their admittance comes at almost the same time that the attack was. Is this what was linked? The timeline does not support this completely as there is a lap of 5 hours. Mr Chaundry was knifed 5 hours earlier, yet some idiot thinking that knifing an innocent old man walking with a cane is a solution?

It seems to me that there seems to be an interesting twist to this story at present.

When looking at the information the internet can give (so that I am as correct as possible) I initially found a BBC link that seemed to have been on the same route. The odd part was that the reference is pointing to February 2013.

This is the information the link gave: “Terrorism trial focus on Birmingham – BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-21458869
Feb 21, 2013 – Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali, all from Birmingham, face life … November 2008: Rashid Rauf from Birmingham died in Pakistan in a US drone attack but his body was … “They have no experience of talking to Muslims at their level. … A 75-year-old man is stabbed to death near a primary school in …”

When looking at the link (as these summaries usually are automatically parsed), I found the page and there is NO mention at all of the 75-Year old. Now, I am very willing to consider that it was just another link to a current article, which makes perfect sense. Yet, this is not the case. There was no link. It is almost like the BBC either edited the story and forgot about the links already on the internet, or it is a second level of information.

There is supporting evidence of this.

UK NBC had this link to show:

“75-year-old man stabbed to death – News
news.uk.msn.com/uk/75-year-old-man-stabbed-to-death
23 hours ago – A 75-year-old man attacked as he returned from evening prayers had … in an attack just yards from his home in Small Heath, Birmingham, on Monday night. ….. dallying…..it was a hate crime…simply because he was a Muslim.”

The search engine provided the information above, yet the link takes you to the article with the headline “Murder victim stabbed three times”

It seems there are several levels of editing going on, which in reality might be fine enough. Articles get updated and edited all the time. There will always be an over-zealous writer who needs a little editing by his/her editor.
Consider the text “it was a hate crime…simply because he was a Muslim.” could even have been a valid response in anger. If it was my partner or father, I might have responded in similar ways. Could we blame the family for such feelings? Yet, I do not know whether it was or was not said.

Yet, this al shows another side of the press. This in my view is another notch on the barrel of press reform a-la Leveson. Why is information missing? The NBC article is only 234 words. As web space is next to free, the article could have been a lot more informative. If there was nothing more, then WHY is there such misinformation in the search engine? The press is not allowed mentions of ignorance on their side in this matter, considering the massive amounts of text they put on the internet. The fact that these events seem to have happened with BOTH the BBC and NBC gives food for thought that there is some level of managed information.
I cannot oppose the thought that some information might be suppressed for the need to keep the peace and not make issues escalate, why make things harder for the police? Yet, the press has shown too often that it is all about THEIR needs, the rest be damned. That much, the bulk of all people can agree on in the light of the Leveson report.

A 75-year-old man is stabbed to death near a primary school in Birmingham.

It is a sad event and no matter how sad the event, trying to manage information is often a bad idea.
I must add ‘IF THAT WAS THE CASE!’ The simple truth is that I cannot prove one side from the other, yet the evidence as the search engines bring them to me gives indication that information was edited, yet where and on what level is less certain. There was the report by the police as mentioned in more than one source that there was nothing to suspect that the attack was racially motivated. I doubt whether it could be disregarded at face value, but I am willing to take the police view at this point as they were on the scene and I was not.

Over the next few days we will likely hear more. Will the truth come out? This is less likely, but not because of the efforts of the Midlands Police. The reality is that when a man is walked upon and gets stabbed in the open road, there will likely be a lack of forensic evidence. I do not envy the work Detective superintendent Mark Payne has ahead of him, but no matter what. Should he find those behind this brutal and cowardly attack then the sweet taste of victory will definitely and well deserved be his.

A man, coming back from his place of worship is on his way home only to be stabbed to death pretty much in front of his home. It happened on the other side of the world, yet it saddened me more than usual.
What has this world come to?

1 Comment

Filed under Media

Tagged as BBC, Birmingham, google, Mark Payne, Midland police, Mohammed Saleem Chaudry, murder victim, NBC, UK

Tag Archives: BBC

Recent Posts

Archives