Tag Archives: CNN

August 16, 2015 · 22:47

Hunting for a fee

It has been a mere week since we saw the message from some ‘experts’ on the daughter of David Beckham. What I would call a beyond acceptable choice on the media and its non-stop pursuit of what we consider to be values. It does so whilst doing whatever it can to get ratings, to grow circulation. A tsunami of what we call ‘the Glossy invasion‘.

Yesterday we saw (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/14/opinions/arbiter-royal-photos/index.html), with the title ‘Can UK royals win battle against paparazzi?‘ In my view there will be no battle, as we see the quote “While aides were quick to praise the British media for not printing illicit photos, they issued their strongest warning yet to those who choose to forgo decent editorial practices” as well as “Many would argue that all children, not just those who are royal, should be allowed to play free from the prying eye of a photographer intent on financial gain, sequestered in the boot of his car and equipped with a long lens“. It comes with the final mention “how do you mandate a global press“. Which in my view is very easy, you wage war, plain and simple!

For the larger extent the media has shown themselves to be little more than the mere equivalent of a prostitute with the moral compass that is significantly worse than that of a crack dealer.

But is this the extent of it? Are we overreacting? Let’s face it, pictures are taken every day, we photograph celebrities every day (when we can), but to what extent will we ignore a person’s right to privacy? Many like me, we will bump into the odd celebrity at times, hoping to get a picture or a selfie, many will oblige, take the time and effort. Yet not all are in that mindset, especially when they feel unready to face the scrutiny of the lens. Some will try this at red carpet events when the stars are all ready to be photographed. So those moments are often easy moments to get the star we would like to snap for that Kodak moment. The Paparazzi is another matter entirely. They have always been in the news and when it comes to Royal families, these people tend to go completely overboard. I still personally feel that Lady Diana Spencer was murdered by the paparazzi. Now we see that her grandchildren are increasingly in danger by perhaps even those very same paparazzi.

So is this real danger or alleged danger?

This is a question that is more than just a mere legality, history has shown that extremists will take any chance to propel their own agenda at the expense of anyone else. Which means that for these extremists, the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be regarded as legitimate targets and as such the paparazzi could be intended or not aiding said extremists. In my personal view the quote “London’s Metropolitan Police soon after released a statement saying protection officers had to make split-second decisions, and photographers using covert tactics ran the risk of being mistaken for someone intent on doing harm” (source ABC at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-15/royals-increasingly-dangerous-tactics-photograph-prince-george/6699632) is something to ponder. In my view (again a personal one) shooting one of these paparazzi’s ‘accidently’ might not be the worst idea, it seems that when these individuals realise that whatever they do comes at a cost of life, their moral compass tends to reset towards what keeps them alive.

Yet this is only the introduction to an article that graced the Independent on Saturday (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prince-george-and-the-paparazzi-deferring-to-the-long-arm-of-buckingham-palace-10457349.html). Here we see the quote in the subtitle: ‘the former boss of Hacked Off, a critic of press intrusion, says this time the royals are expecting too much protection‘. Is that so?

Consider this quote: “along with the carefully posed images of George holding his baby sister, Princess Charlotte. The “bad” photos, to be clear, might look cute but they’re not, since they were taken by unauthorised photographers. These pictures are so bad, in fact, that the police have warned anyone taking them that they risk being shot. Has everyone taken leave of their senses?”

I am not sure whether they have!

You see, I personally have the skill to take someone’s head of at three times the distance of what my large lens can do (the 200mm I could afford), so when a paparazzi holding a shoulder mount for their camera, could at 300-600 meters easily be mistaken for a rifle, the Leupold VX-3L 6.5-20x56mm is the size of a Canon lens, so I feel quite outspoken that the police has not taken leave of their senses!

Yet my view in all this is not even that side, it is not the ‘morality’ of the paparazzi, even though they rank up there with ice pushers on a schoolyard. This is not about them trying to get the shots of an adult, this is about children, royalty or not! That part does not matter. Just as another article that saw us in defense of David Beckham’s little princess, is setting us off in equal measure here.

This is not merely about a child with a dummy. This is about what was behind that. Let me re-iterate that. Several sources state “The comfort from sucking on a pacifier provide security and comfort can reduce the amount of stress a baby experiences“. I am not stating that I know why the Beckham’s were in that article, the entire dummy (read pacifier) could be about his little girl not feeling well, yet I feel certain that the paparazzi are leaving their own mark of stress with these children. We all have a direct need to keep children safe, those who cause a child to be in distress can find themselves suddenly surrounded by people wanting to do those transgressors harm and on our scale in general, a paparazzi does not really score that high and after what happened to the grandmother of Prince George and Princess Charlotte we see even less reasons to go soft on those paparazzi.

In my view, the courts seem to have gone overboard to protect the media in the past. When we look at Von Hannover v Germany [2004], we saw that even though an injunction was granted, we see that ‘allowances’ are made for public figures. We tend to get the following “a public figure does not necessarily enjoy the same respect for their private life as others, as matters of public concern might justify the publication of information about that person that might otherwise interfere with the right to privacy“, yet in this light, clear consideration must be given to children, especially those under 17 to be regarded out of bounds. If we can accept that Harper Seven Beckham is showing possible signs of stress, stress that could very well be brought through unbalanced and unwanted exposure to the media and strangers, the law will require additional tightening, especially in regards to the right of privacy and additional optional prosecution to those invading that privacy.

In the case of the very long lens that case is much harder to make as the perpetrator is nowhere near the victim, yet in that same case, in the case of Prince George and Princess Charlotte, the possible interpreted danger to their lives by the people assigned to protect these royal members, to them the option arrives that any threat to the royal family must be met with deadly determination if need be.

As such, responding to the allegations in the independent, no one took leave of their senses. Some took leave of common sense for money and that tends to come with a consequence. Yet the article in the Independent is quite good, it asks valid questions. When we see “People are allowed to take pictures in a public place as long as their behaviour doesn’t amount to stalking, in which case it could have been dealt with under the Protection from Harassment Act“, this is a valid point. But in this case there are two additional elements. The paparazzi could easily be mistaken for a Predatory stalkers, an individual spying on a victim in order to prepare and plan an attack, which led me to the extremist link. A side that the writer of the article should have mentioned more prominently. In addition, this is not against adults, this is against children, a group that deserve additional layers of protection, no matter how public a figure their parent is, or both of them are. A situation that applies to both the Duke and duchess of Cambridge as well as the Beckham’s. The Independent does raise parts again when they state “The couple may fear a terrorist attack, but that’s a reason for reviewing overall security, including the wisdom of allowing George to play in a public park“, which again is a fair enough statement. Yet in equal measure is that until that fear is reasonable, having children to be a child everywhere is a given right to the child and as such we, not the child will have to make allowances, including an extended right to privacy and security. A side Niraj Tanna seemed to ignore for what is likely to be founded on income, not any greater good.

So does Joan Smith, former executive director of ‘Hacked Off’ have a case here? She brings it well enough, but in my view, elements are missing. No matter whose children they are, children are entitled to extensive layers of protection, especially against paparazzi and outside (read non family based pressures). Even if these hunters take their respectable distance, the pictures will haunt them forever, they will become the object of extreme obsession to some, which tends to go wrong at some point.

In light of consenting to photography, the ‘non-consenting child’ seems to be the factor that many seem to ignore. Media law is due a massive update on a global scale, we have catered to what people regard as ‘freedom of the press’ for far too long, a press that seems to take a wide berth around PriceWaterhouse Coopers and Tesco issues (the PwC side of it), or the SFO matters connected to all this. Now, we can understand that that issue is not something that is of interest for the Glossy magazines, but the media is for the most not some little magazine. They are conglomerates. Companies like Bauer Media and VNU can invoke pressures that can paralyse governments. They control dozens of magazines that can change public opinion in a heartbeat. They only way to deal with this is to adapt laws that give added protection to media exploitation of children, whether they come from public figures or not. In addition it is interesting to raise the case of Paparazzo Richard Fedyck from April this year. The quote “The Vancouver celebrity photographer faces charges of assault with a weapon, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and criminal harassment. He made his first court appearance after arriving hours in advance in a bid to avoid cameras and media” gives us the clear view that the paparazzi tends to be camera shy. It is equally hilarious that we get “his defence lawyer Jonathan Waddington immediately asked for a ban on publication of the court proceedings”. Irony is such a lovely dish at times (at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/paparazzo-in-ryan-reynolds-hit-and-run-case-makes-court-appearance-1.3053082). So it seems that privacy is treasured by paparazzi when they are the focal point of issues.

It is high time that some legal media matters change as soon as possible, especially where it concerns children.

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABC, Bauer Media, CBC, CBC Canada, children, CNN, David Beckham, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Hacked off, Harper Seven Beckham, Joan Smith, Jonathan Waddington, Lady Diana spencer, London's Metropolitan Police, Niraj Tanna, Paparazzi, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Protection from Harassment Act, PwC, Richard Fedyck, Tesco, The Independent, VNU, Von Hannover v Germany [2004]

August 2, 2015 · 21:08

A digital deception?

There is an interesting weekend going on. First we see people waking up to the Microsoft premise that free is apparently never free, in addition, we now see more and more noises regarding Net Neutrality. We will get back to Microsoft soon enough, because there is more to Net Neutrality than meets the eye. First let’s take a look at the definition of Net Neutrality. Wiki tells us “Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication”, now this sounds interesting, but the reality is not that easy as I see it. For example, consider Oracle Forms, who needs the reserved bandwidth, if we cannot deliver, that solution would become an issue to implement. Oracle Forms is not the only one, many other situations exist where priority is essential. Video conferences is one of several. The idea came from Tim Wu, he is the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. His paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. The paper can be downloaded at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863.

As any academic work, it is quality stuff, yet, do I agree? I have an issue with the following parts:

On page 1 “Critics, meanwhile, have taken open-access regulation as unnecessary and likely to slow the pace of broadband deployment“, America is about to encounter the point where ALL the TCP/IP addresses have been taken, no more addresses, which means that IPv6 will soon be the only option remaining. You see IPv4 provides roughly 4.3 billion addresses. Companies, people, devices all requiring an IP address (mucho plural), well at some point the end is reached and that point is now, but that is not the entire point of my objections, because “likely to slow the pace of broadband deployment” is about need. I do not see how broadband deployment is hindered by the current system (other than running out of addresses). We have seen an almost exponential growth in getting online. Ever since the broadband has been an option, we have seen spectacular growth. First through normal internet connections, then via cable providers, now in addition we have mobiles with 4G and WiMax providers.

The second quote is “That deviation is favouritism of data applications, as a class, over latency-sensitive applications involving voice or video“. Which might be fair, but for the most, this has apart from specific application NEVER been a true issue. YouTube caches, so I personally have never truly seen an issue, not in over 15 years. Voice is a different situation, is this about VOIP? On one side, in an academic paper we need to keep an open mind, which makes it a good statement, but when we regard government pushed policy “open access alone can be an insufficient remedy for many of the likely instances of network discrimination“, the use of the word ‘likely’ seems a little unacceptable.

The next issue is found on page 158 of the paper “Have broadband operators tended to favour certain uses of the Internet?” To what extent? The goal of this section is to answer these questions, to the extent possible, for broadband networks during the year 2002, so we get answers based on a situation that is 13 years old, so this is BEFORE true smartphones, before quality 3G and whilst 100Mb broadband was rare. 1000Mb is now in some places regarded as slow, we get internet information faster on our mobiles now, than on broadband in those days, overall the growth of speed has been near unparalleled since the beginning of the internet and I am just looking at the last 5 years. The more I read of this 39 page paper, the less this makes sense in the current environment. Not the thoughts by themselves, the thoughts made perfect sense (to a certain degree) in those days. Yet, the ISP’s and Cable providers evolved almost exponential in their offerings. For the same price I now get a little over 10 times the amount I had before. I now end up with 500% download space of what I need (and I have one of the cheapest offers), so far I have not seen any limitation on what I require, so is this a pure American issue? That could be the case, but those pushing Net Neutrality better realise that moving business from US to Canada is not that far-fetched an option, I personally see these events as the FCC seems shooting itself in the foot.

Yet are my thoughts correct? (Always a good question to ask)

Let’s take a look at the Washington Post (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/07/24/republicans-are-trying-to-defund-net-neutrality-will-it-work/), ‘Republicans are trying to defund net neutrality. Will it work?‘ The quote “This week, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill that contains an amendment singling out the FCC and net neutrality. Notably, the rider would prohibit the FCC from using its most powerful regulatory tool to police Internet providers — Title II of the Communications Act” is at the centre. Yet, what the Washington Post shows is nothing more than a political side.

It’s CNN that gives us part of the goods (at http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/12/technology/net-neutrality/), they ask a few questions and give us answers. That is what matters. So let’s take a look.

“Isn’t that what exists today? For the most part. In reality, the world won’t look much different on Friday. Netflix won’t suddenly stream any faster for you. AT&T (T, Tech30) and Comcast (CMCSA) won’t abruptly stop laying down high-speed fiber cables and investing in their networks as retaliation“, after which CNN brings a quote that is surprising “And Comcast can’t slow down file-sharing websites, like it did to BitTorrent a few years ago“, which is more than interesting. Because, for the commerce of the USA file sharing is not a good thing, even though downloading movies is copyright infringement, pursuing these events is a near impossible task, especially when those servers are outside of the USA.

Who supports net neutrality? Now this is the number one question. “AOL (AOL, Tech30), Facebook (FB, Tech30), Netflix (NFLX, Tech30), Twitter (TWTR, Tech30), Vimeo and every other major Internet company are in favour of the FCC’s new rules. They create the content you read and watch online, and they don’t want to face discrimination by network owners who can threaten to charge higher fees or slow them down“. This statement is pretty far out there when you are not an American. In America, when you see places like Comcast, you pay for 75Mbs, 150Mbs and prices go up fast. So from this point is there reasoning for Net Neutrality? I still do not agree, but before going into this we need to look at Sprint, they offer unlimited high speeds with a sharable 10Gb for $100. This is less than 40% of the bandwidth I had 6 years ago at half this price. San Francisco gave me decent prices that are in alignment with what we see in Europe. Again, will Net Neutrality solve this?

Now let’s take a look at those supporters, Facebook and Twitter are data collectors, Twitter is the smaller and Facebook in the larger extent. Netflix customers require download power a lot more than Net Neutrality. The same can be said for Vimeo, AOL and Google+ for that matter. They all are vying for a customer base and when a person gets 10 GB at $100, whilst Europe and Australia enjoy prices like $70 for 200 GB you can see the issue at play. I am wondering whether this is about Net Neutrality or is there an issue with cartelisation in the US? We are so used to see that things are cheaper in the US, the fact that the US is leaps behind when it comes to the internet. That does not address the Net Neutrality. In my view it leaves us with more questions. The fact that prices are so high makes me wonder why a place like the US is not more competitive in that regard. But this article is not about that. It seems that Netflix needs download power to survive, and that is lacking in the US. In addition, it seems that the providers are extremely ‘protective’ on pricing, when investigating prices, TWC gave me “You are visiting our website from an area we don’t currently service“, which I got whilst entering a Chicago Address. So in all this, there is a multitude of issues, which have less to do with Net Neutrality and more about the stranglehold on pricing some seem to keep in the US.

Now am I upset? Well that is not really the question is it? I am like many others a capitalist (to some degree), yet that part has always been drenched in reason. As the information is reaching me, reason is not really a part that the internet providers seem to employ in the US. Especially as they offer internet at 33% of the speed and at 20 times the price. So it seems to me that Net Neutrality, even though in this light might have some effect to some of the solutions depending on the internet, yet the overwhelming thought from me is that as the FCC pushes Net Neutrality, we will also see a shift of the business world seeking an alternative.

When we see an argument that “Comcast could slow down BitTorrent traffic (it did)“, yet when we consider an article by Jacqui Cheng from the 24^th July 2010, we see ‘Only 0.3% of files on BitTorrent confirmed to be legal‘, this was from a study that involved 1000 downloads, so 997 were infringing in one way or another, so why is it an issue to slow down BitTorrent?

A final issue should be given to Wired Magazine, who (at http://www.wired.com/2014/01/three-dangers-net-neutrality-nobodys-really-talking/) gives us several views in the article ‘Three Dangers of Losing Net Neutrality That Nobody’s Talking About‘

The first comes from American Library Association head Barbara Stripling “we’re in danger of prioritizing high-quality internet access for entertainment over education“, is this about the costs of a broadband plan? I have seen how this is not cheap, even as the article is only a year old. She also states “Ultimately, “pay to play” only benefits the privileged“, which I can agree with, it will be about usage and bandwidth, Net Neutrality will not up the game for them, it is about pricing and in some cases the prices are overwhelmingly ridiculous.

The second issue is ‘we continue to give more control over the internet to the government‘, which seems to be the case, but why is it done? Draining additional resources, forcing costs that should not be with the government. The quote here is “What’s worse is that we won’t see it coming, because the FCC’s power will creep in incrementally, on a case-by-case basis — a death by a thousand cuts“. Why is the FCC even bothering with this? Regarding the extent of what I saw as it applies to the US, this is becoming an increasing case of ‘Unjust Enrichment‘. Yet, the legal scope is not entirely ready to deal with this from an internet point of view. The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in Schroeder v. Buchholz, 2001 ND 36, 622 N.W.2d 202 that five elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment.

They were:

An enrichment (Telco’s making excessive profits)
An impoverishment (Consumers are charged above their affordable income).
A connection between enrichment and the impoverishment
Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment
An absence of a remedy provided by the law (clearly in absentia)

It will be hard to prove this part, you see, it is not just about enrichment and impoverishment. The internet world is moving population classes into the haves and the have not, which is a different standard, yet the foundation might apply in finding the remedy for internet pricing, especially when we realise that one in 10 that would end up spending a little over 10% of income to allow for internet (based on the Chicago example), is this an excessive cost? That would be for a court to decide and that decision would not be the same state by state. Yet as that becomes a solution, the Net Neutrality need would diminish.

In the end, I am not convinced that the issues are about ‘neutrality‘, but it is about current technology and about fairness and affordability of the internet, especially when we consider that every child today needs to learn to proper use the internet from a young age, only to keep even with the other players, once the US falls deeper into the pay to play trench, we will see the growth of additional classes of segregation, those who are technically viable users and those who are not. That last one must be avoided at all costs, an issue Net Neutrality as I personally see it will not answer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Politics, Science

Tagged as 2001 ND, American Library Association, AOL, Barbara Stripling, BitTorrent, CNN, Columbia Law School, Comcast, Facebook, FCC, Microsoft, Net Neutrality, Netflix, Network Neutrality, North Dakota Supreme Court, Schroeder v. Buchholz, Tim Wu, Twitter, Unjust Enrichment, Washington Post, Wired, Wired.com

January 25, 2015 · 23:50

That what is ignored!

I feel a little on edge at present. You see, there are certain things that are just not done. The entire case that is set against Prince Andrew is such an event. I dealt with several issues in my blog called ‘As we judge morality‘ a little over two weeks ago.

Yet as some of these ‘claims’ are set in print again and again, especially the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, should we consider prosecuting Paul Michael Dacre (Daily Mail) and Ian MacGregor (the Telegraph) for libel?

Here is my reasoning, as I went through the Defamation Act 2013:

In section 4 (Publication on matter of public interest), we see in subsection 1:
It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that
(a) the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and
(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.

So far so good, we can all agree that published statements of members of the Royal family are indeed public interest. However, is it at (b) where we see ‘reasonably believed‘, as I stated in the previous article ‘As we judge morality‘, I came to serious doubts to some regard of these events as I looked into the PDF of what I believe to be the original affidavit from the Palm beach Police Department. In that regard, none of the papers had picked up the pace and the fact that it took me less than 10 minutes to find then Detective Joe Recarey. None of the papers seem to be clued in at all. Even the Guardian, who remained devoid of innuendo (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/23/prince-andrew-lawyers-sex-questions-court), did work on this story and as such Alan Rushbridger, as editor of the Guardian should consider the choices he made, especially the choice he did made by not doing them (which is his prerogative of course).

Now I get back to the previously mentioned section 4. Is it that far a jump that to use the defence regarding ‘publication on matter of public interest‘ that the journalistic party has a responsibility to decently investigate the claims it is printing? So now we get to the Joe Racarey part, by NOT properly investigating the claims, can we now get to the part that these negations nullify the defence in section 4 that the press might seem to rely on? This now means that there is a possible case of libel that the press could have to answer to? That negation is found in the part ‘reasonably believed‘, as there was no proper investigation, there can be no reasonable belief as I see it. So now, the press would need to rely on the defences as seen in sections 2 and 3.

Section 2 is about ‘substantially true’, most important is subsection 3, where we see ‘If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation‘

So, the defence holds, but only if those that were not substantially true did not harm the claimant’s reputation. I reckon that the accusation in itself is already showing to be damaging beyond belief, which takes care of section 2 and section 3 is about ‘honest opinion’, this is not an opinion piece, this is about an allegation that will be considered a serious crime if proven correctly. So as I personally see it, there is no defence left for defamation should such charges be brought against certain tabloids.

Let’s look at the following quotes: ““I had sex with him three times, including one orgy,” Roberts claims in her affidavit” from the Guardian. Now this is pure reporting, I still believe that in the light of a few articles, the Guardian should have gone a lot further digging before getting on the ‘gossip’ gravy train (even though we clearly accept that reporting is not regarded as gossip), the reasoning of the person making the claim needs to be above a certain level, that part is still not proven. My issue is not with the Guardian in this case, although showing support for the Royal family by digging a little better would not have been the worst idea.

With the Daily Mail it is a different kind of fish. We get a photo with quote “‘On chummy terms’: The Duke of York takes a stroll with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York” (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597308/The-bombshell-court-document-claims-Prince-Andrew-knew-billionaire-friends-abuse-age-girls.html), yet they are adamant of not mentioning when the photo was taken. You see, an actual journalist would mention when it was taken, not imply all with an added picture. In their defence, they also wrote “There is, however, no suggestion that the Duke was involved in any form of sexual exploitation” in that same article. The quote “Miss Roberts alleges she and the royal had sex when she was aged around 17, still a minor under US law in some states” (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2921490/Prince-Andrew-appears-public-Davos-time-emerged-called-swear-oath-innocent-sex-claims.html) gives us more. Yes, it is ‘alleges’, yet not unlike the Guardian they could have done their homework a little better before adding the articles as they had been added. It is my personal view (so feel free to consider that choice, not to just add articles as is, especially when the allegations involve members of the Royal family. I am not stating not to print them; I am stating that a high(er) level of investigative quality would have gone a long way towards giving the audience the quality article that they are entitled to.

The Telegraph has not faltered in remaining massively below expectations either. “It was his ongoing friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, an American financier, that saw him forced to step down as the UK’s trade envoy in 2011” (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11364822/Judith-Woods-Prince-Andrew-was-pitch-perfect-for-a-change.html). Whenever there is any mention we see the following by-line ‘Prince Andrew Duke of York’s reputation has already been tainted by his association with the disgraced American financier‘, with each time EXACTLY the same photograph in several papers, all devoid of the mention WHEN that photograph was taken. How tabloids are willing to misinform you for the mere need of circulation!

So what should be done?

Well, I am all about the freedom of the press, but not when it comes to non-accountability. Here is also the problem; the press is in this case as they report on events, not accountable and there would be no case, but in my view, should there be a case? Let us not forget that the circumstances as given in more than one regard. Not that this was reported on, but that the press did not take extra efforts to investigate what could have been investigated. The earlier mentioned detective is only one of several options. When a royal is on some trip, his calendar tends to be filled and usual in company of others. There is no denying he had met Virginia Roberts, but were they ever actually in private areas? Now, the yes and no of that is of course what one person or what the other person states, my issue has a few other directions.

The first part is seen in the Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896075/Prince-Andrew-flies-skiing-holiday-tell-Queen-s-innocent-underage-sex-allegations-does-immunity-deal-government.html), you see the quote “But today Mr Roberts retracted his claim. In a statement sent to MailOnline, he said: ‘I want to clear up that many years ago Virginia stated to me she was to meet the Queen’s son Prince Andrew and not the Queen herself. I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.’” Can anyone explain to me how a father (or mother for that matter) would allow their child to travel unaccompanied? No matter if that person would have been her Majesty the Queen herself, you do not let your child travel alone! If someone was there in any position as chaperone, then there should be a record of this. In addition, so much travel as a minor, on what passport? Where an on what dates did this person pass through customs with a passport?

Last there is the following statement “Epstein, a long-term friend of Andrew, was jailed for 13 months in 2008 for soliciting girls for under-age prostitution. The pair remained friends and were seen together in 2011 after Epstein’s release”. You see, this is stated in more than one form in several places, but was Epstein a long-term friend? Most of us want to be friendly with billionaires, but that does not make such a connection one of friends. When searching through boatload of pages, that part has not been illuminated for one iota (I admit that I might have missed it), but the fact that no one is clearly telling us about that ‘so-called’ friendship is decently worrying. Then we get the ‘seen together in 2011’, there could be several valid reasons. Yes, it is not ideal, but let us not forget the fact that Epstein remains a billionaire! We can speculate all we want, but why did they meet? Was this ever clearly reported on? Was Prince Andrew asked? Epstein has been investing in many philanthropically flavoured endeavours, so the chance that Epstein meets with people of fame and/or royalty is a lot more likely. Should this make us uneasy? Absolutely, but can it be avoided? Not sure! By the way, they do not look too chummy in the photograph!

However, going back over the previous part, there is actually in the Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905218/Prince-Andrew-admits-s-foolish-friendship-paedophile-billionaire-Jeffrey-Epstein.html), the following “The Duke had previously said he had made an ‘error of judgement’ when he was snapped strolling through New York’s Central Park in 2011 with Epstein following his release from jail”, yet there is no mention why they met (still it is not a good situation to be in), also there was “expressing his regret for the ill-advised friendship”, which gives us enough that the previous statement is seemingly all correct. Still the issue remains, as I see it, that the papers should have done a lot more by giving clarity to the events.

Yet when we look at CNN (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/05/europe/prince-andrew-sex-abuse-allegations/), we see that the CNN article has a massive amount of information regarding the accusations and how Alan Dershowitz responded to them. The fact that we get the quote: “Dershowitz offered to waive the statute of limitations and “any immunity.”” Gives added light to the case. If this is proven, not only could her claim be regarded as useless, valueless and foundation less. There would be in addition severe consequences for her legal team. Alan Dershowitz has decided to counter claim those events by having the attorneys for Virginia Roberts to be removed from the role of attorneys. If that is maintained we get the new part, how to deal with the press.

Now we get to the part that has been an issue all along. You see, the press have gotten away with way too much for a long time. As such, if the clear evidence is set against Virginia Roberts, it will be our turn!

You see, I still have an issue with the press to a certain extent, they have played too many games and they still regard them as captains of the fate of others for the ever growing need of more revenue. When proven that the Duke of York was indeed innocent we can change the future, we can finally hold the press to values. It is my belief that once the Duke is proven to be innocent, the people in the UK will possibly unite for a referendum DEMANDING that the full Leveson report is implemented. No space for journalists crying like little bitches on how the freedom of the press is such a valued commodity. As I see it, they threw away the concept quality reporting some time ago. With the Leveson report fully implemented, the press will have no option but to actually create quality journalism, or be held accountable for 8 figure penalties for every transgression made. It will be a brand new day! I wonder if Hugh Grant considered this (perhaps he did) and it could be a new round for that what was ‘hacked off’.

I believe that the people have had enough of a certain journalistically based approach to what is true, good and ethical. The people to a larger extent still have not forgiven the loss of Lady Diana Spencer due to paparazzi (some still consider her to have been murdered through the acts of paparazzi). If these hurtful events against Prince Andrew turn out to be false, I feel certain that enough people can be rallied to force a referendum on implementing the full Leveson report. Let us not forget the headline ‘MH370 suicide mission’, whilst no evidence was ever recovered proving that headline. In the end Epstein might face additional scrutiny, whether they proceed whilst successfully avoiding a situation of double jeopardy remains an issue. Yet, in all this, Virginia Roberts will have as new problem, if Alan Dershowitz can actually bring evidence to make his case, the life of Virginia Roberts will end, because being a victim is one thing, failing prove it and then having to live through evidence proving the opposite is true, will give additional worry to the press in several forms.

This might blow over for some, but for the press this case could soon be the stuff of nightmares, it could have been avoided by properly digging deeper into the story, which is what a journalist was supposed to do to begin with.

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alan Dershowitz, Alan Rushbridger, As we judge morality, CNN, Daily Mail, Defamation Act 2013, Detective Joe Recarey, Duke of York, Hacked off, Hugh Grant, Ian MacGregor, Jeff Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Lady Diana spencer, Palm beach Police Department, Paul Michael Dacre, Prince Andrew, Telegraph, Virginia Roberts

November 14, 2014 · 16:23

Sacking the editor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

October 9, 2014 · 06:44

The murder of innocence

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

Welcome to Canada!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally there is the following:

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

We now get a few more issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

July 30, 2014 · 10:10

Puppet on a string

It is 1967; Sandie Shaw wins the Eurovision Song festival with a happy go lucky song that even today could stay in the mind of those who hear the song. It is one of these timeless songs that can echo in our minds. She wins the day after Israel shows that Russian design requires an update, the final score, Russian MIG 0 versus Israeli Mirage 7 (a design they would later borrow to make the Mirage 5). Gaza gets occupied, Moshe Dayan becomes minister of defence and shows his opponents that one good eye is all one needs to have, which is a lesson his opponents would learn the hard way. It is the year that Benjamin Netanyahu joins the IDF (he currently has a non-IDF desk job).

Just who’s pulling the strings
I’m all tied up to you
But where’s it leading me to?

Elements of the song have become a reality!

The more you read about the issues in that year, the more the clear impression is that the pre-1967 borders were not just dangerous, returning to them might ‘inspire’ elements from neighbouring countries to take advantage of these borderlines to truly start a horror offensive against the state of Israel. How can we allow this with our eyes wide open? Was one failed attempt (Germany’s European tour 1939-1945) not enough?

If we take a look at the promise, stated to have been made by the USA (at http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/20/u-s-promised-israels-pre-1967-borders-as-basis-for-peace-negotiations-palestinian-officials-say/) to have been anything but unrealistic? How we saw the news last year on the ‘promise‘ of a peaceful tomorrow by State Secretary John Kerry. How could such a thought be entertained? The quote “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to resume peace talks with Israel only after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry gave him a letter guaranteeing that the basis of the negotiations will be Israel’s pre-1967 borders, two senior Palestinian officials said Saturday“, it makes perfect sense that President Abbas wanted to talk, but with Palestine having absolutely ZERO control over Hamas, how could Israel see this in any way then the intent of them becoming the proverbial lamb that is getting guided to the slaughter table? In hindsight, we all see and many admit that Israel made mistakes in 1967, yet overall, if you have read my blogs, where I actually suggested that Sinai returns to Israeli hands, returning the Sinai to Egypt, was perhaps a mistake.

Please understand that this is NOT against Egypt, taking them out of the equation as Sinai escalates might actually be good for Egypt in the long run. Egypt is dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda (or ISIS as this extreme Islamic arm tends to call themselves at present) is growing its presence in the Sinai, becoming a possible threat, not just against Israel, but it will also leave both Jordan and Egypt more vulnerable. This would allow for the Al Qaeda/ISIS trench, giving them a direct route of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Sinai and Egypt. Such a route would enable Hamas in ways nobody wants and the threat to both Qatar as well as Saudi Arabia would become direct and perhaps even imminent to some extent.

So, why is this scenario ignored? I am not stating that there should not be a cease fire in Gaza, but the elements in play, as well as several refusals from Hamas, the constant attacks into Israel with well over 1300 missiles in 2013 (I keep on mentioning this as the cost goes into the many millions), which also seems ignored. Consider this incomplete quote “Out of the 1.7 million Palestinians living in Gaza, 54% are food insecure including 428,000 children. Israel’s illegal blockade has led to a massive shortage of building materials….” really? So how are they paying for all these missiles? If there was only food going through them tunnels, Israel would not be all up in arms, would they?

So when we look at the CNN interview where we read this “CNN’s ‘New Day’ asked chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat what the purpose of the tunnels were. ‘I know the situation is so much complex — I am not saying I know the picture as a whole,’ he responded. But, he said, ‘Gaza is now like a burning building. We need to get the people out, and then we need to extinguish the fire, and then we sit down and talk’” (at http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/28/world/meast/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews)

So the question did not get answered. In my view, Hamas has never honoured a ceasefire and any ceasefire ‘agreed’ upon seems to have been to overcome moments of low amounts of ammunition. Many of the players connected to this game have had enough and the US seems to be running out of coin and economic options, as well as increasing threats from a village east of Munich (Moscow, in case you were wondering).

I have been making light of certain moments, it is not stress or fear. I am just hoping that meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin where I tell them “pull my finger“, they will laugh and perhaps consider solutions out of the box, because as we all bicker over issues that are truly real, we seem to ignore the quickly growing sphere of influence ISIS seems to have, the events of the last two weeks clearly prove this. If we are to continue on any path where the State of Israel remains as a nation of commerce, as well as a future truce in that region, then we alas must accept that this cannot happen as long as Hamas remains. It is here where I personally disagree with the views of Lt. General Michael Flynn (Director of the DIA, at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/27/us-mideast-gaza-usa-hamas-idUSKBN0FW01F20140727).

There is enough information that the People in Gaza are tired of Hamas, Hamas who indiscriminately executed innocent Palestinians, because they weren’t shouting anti-Israel slogans loud enough. If Hamas is gone, providing Israel is then willing to sit down with the Palestinians in Gaza, there is enough information to stop the growth of ISIS in that region, providing Egypt can stop the Muslim Brotherhood members from converting to ISIS members, because that would not be good for the people of Egypt, not for its economy or the leaders of Egypt for now. Flynn’s remarks were published and stated seem incomplete to me. It is unlikely that he would spill the beans in public, but we should consider not just the ISIS visibility as it has been happening, but the speed it happened at, with the materials they seem to control. There is enough information to consider additional dangerous extremism as they become the fuse for Jordan. After that Israel will be adjacent to two ISIS strongholds, forcing Israel clearly into a corner. This is why the approach to Hamas as the General states it seems wrong to me, if they wait, Israel will be caught in a virtual vice between Hamas and ISIS. The better course of action in my book is to deal with Hamas now, and allow the Palestinians in Gaza stop the growth of ISIS, which would be more than a great bargaining chip for Gaza, it might be a first piece of evidence that Gaza is no longer the threat it was in 1967. That might be a true first step in creating a lasting peace.
Too bad Hamas was not willing to consider peace.

Tik Tok!

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as 1967, Benjamin Netanyahu, CNN, DIA, Egypt, Gaza, Germany, Hamas, IDF, ISIS, Israel, John Kerry, Lt. General Michael Flynn, Mirage, Moscow, Moshe Dayan, Munich, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, President Abbas, Saeb Erakat, Sandie Shaw, Sinai, State John Kerry, State Secretary John Kerry, USA, Vladimir Putin

July 28, 2014 · 11:35

The old reasons

There are a lot of high running tensions in play at present. There is the Gaza, which has been going on since I was there in 1982 and there is the downing of MH17, which is now becoming an increasingly political hot potato involving the Russians.

Yesterday, Nick Clegg called for stripping Russia from the world cup 2018 (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/nick-clegg-russia-world-cup-2018-stripped-mh17-ukraine). I do not think I can presently agree with this. Yes, there are issues that need to be answered, yet, there is enough evidence to clearly state that Russian separatists, not the Russian army shot the plane down. The last group might not be innocent, yet for this we need actual evidence, which is currently (for now) not available.

David Cameron seems to be in agreement with me (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/david-cameron-russia-2018-world-cup-ukraine).

In my case there is another reason. If we are to resolve any issues, then we need to make sure that diplomats get as many options as they can to smooth things over. In three years the issues of MH17 will have been passed, yet what lies around the corner? There is not a person in the world who can give us any answer in that regard, nor should they have to. If we want options, than we need to look no further than the Olympics, especially the ‘original’ ones (you know, the ones you might have seen in 776 BC).

In those days, there was an important side to these groups of people, who were always bickering with each other using swords and spears. It was stated “During the Olympic Games, a truce, or ekecheiria was observed. Three runners, known as spondophoroi were sent from Elis to the participant cities at each set of games to announce the beginning of the truce. During this period, armies were forbidden from entering Olympia, wars were suspended, and legal disputes and the use of the death penalty were forbidden“.

It was a stroke of genius! This was a time when certain officials could off the books meet and possibly broker solutions in a way where the ego and reputation of a person was not on the line. It was a time when some people could meet and possibly longer lasting truces could be held. Even today, when the emotions run high, we need to make certain that such an option remains.

This brings me to the second part in this, which is only casually linked. It was my blog of March 19th 2014 called ‘Any sport implies corruption!‘ where I looked at some of the issues regarding the accusation of corruption by Qatar in getting the World cup 2022. There were a few views that caused me to question whether there was actual corruption, or was this a push by big business to replace Qatar for revenue reasons? What is ‘more likely than not’ is the question in this case!

Last week the Guardian gave us additional information (at http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/21/ethics-investigation-private-fifa-michael-garcia), in the article, where it states: “Former attorney expected to deliver evidence by end of July“. It is now the end of July and we see the quote “Garcia’s report will go directly to FIFA’s ethics judge Hans-Joachim Eckhart, who is not expected to make any rulings until August or September“, so there will; be another delay in finding out the truth.
Moreover, I feel at present that after that another delay will come as certain people could be offered high income positions in other places before the news comes out. Will that happen? I do not know, what I do know is that the allegations have gone on for way too long and the additional delays, whilst we see more and more press on this should anger us all beyond belief. Big Business made a try and as such they hopefully failed. Of course we will not know until the rulings are made, but I remain adamant in my view! I demand the disclosure of names and participants in these events. In addition, the quote “Shortly before the World Cup in Brazil, Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported that some of the ‘millions of documents’ it had seen linked payments by former FIFA executive committee member Mohamed Bin Hammam to officials to win backing for Qatar’s World Cup bid” (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/25/us-soccer-fifa-qatar-idUSKBN0FU1M720140725), I could not get the Sunday times link as people need to pay for it and it cannot be fully shown, yet the quote is seen at CNN (at http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/02/sport/football/football-qatar-world-cup-sunday-times/) which states: “We’ve seen millions of documents that prove without a shadow of doubt that corruption was involved. There is clear evidence linking payments to people who have influence over the decision of who hosted the World Cup“.
I think we should DEMAND the display of these documents. If there is corruption, we are entitled to see it, on the other hand, if we accept that it is more likely than not that an industry that misses out on millions of dollars are behind the accusations, then we are allowed to see that as well. In that regard, if the Royal commission would prefer not to be the laughing stock regarding the press, then in my view, it should have only one response to the quote from the Sunday Times, when it is proven wrong. The Sunday Times is to cease all operations for no less than 6 months, all staff to be paid during this time, no online activities and no revenue based activities. Subscribers get an automatic 6 months extension.

Is that too harsh?

The claims here, the claims in regards to MH-370 that were made by the Telegraph, none of it founded and no actual evidence ever presented.

Why is this such a big deal?

As the Olympics evolved, the base need for honest and open competition is what allows for differences to be settled. The concept of the Olympics was also continued in other events, like the World Cup Soccer and the Commonwealth Games. These events go beyond the events on the field. It allows for trade discussions, diplomacy and other conversations that have larger impact, in some cases none of them an option in an official capacity. This is why I disagree with Nick Clegg on this.

Even now, I have been adamant about the need for President Vladimir Putin to speak out harshly against these separatists since the first day it happened. It is likely that he relied on the wrong advisers (as I see it), but to cut off options of diplomacy is NEVER EVER a good idea. Even now, we see news (at http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/27/vladimir-putin-facing-multi-million-dollar-lawsuit-for-aiding-separatists-who-shot-down-mh17-lawyers-say/) where the headline “Vladimir Putin facing multi-million dollar lawsuit for aiding separatists who shot down MH17, lawyers say“.

How is this even realistic?

Is there ACTUAL evidence that Putin did directly support in the act that resulted in the downing of MH17? Yes, I agree there are issues with the hardware the separatists have and I mentioned that the first day, whilst the press were all about the ’emotional stories’ (which is not journalistic out of place). The facts are there and they need to be answered, but that lawsuit is a joke. Consider the fact that Osama Bin Laden was a product of the CIA, trained to some extend and funded to a larger extent. Was President George W. Bush, Senator Charles Wilson or many others ever sued for 9/11? Both premises are equally ridiculous. I see them all as meagre attempts from certain individuals to claim income and/or visibility from where ever they can.

So, why this switch?

If any of these issues are to ever be resolved we need to keep one open path, one path no one messes with to remain. We need sports to remain to be about sports, so that those attending (not those who participate), to divert the conversation to non-sport matters. If we can keep peace through an innocent informal conversation, then by all means let us do that. Preferably without a group of bloody Murdoch’s miscreants making claims without producing the actual evidence trying to divert games towards a better ‘big business’ marketable environment. My reasoning here is twofold. First the quote as “We’ve seen millions of documents that prove without a shadow of doubt that corruption was involved”. Were these people really that stupid? The one true rule here is that if it isn’t written down, it does not exist, would people state ‘in writing’ such events (people who should be a lot more intelligent than I am), or is it just a bluff? You see, evidence (or not) did the press not have clear, distinct and utter responsibility to produce and print this evidence? The people who have been hiding behind every sleaze report with pictures stating ‘the people have a right to know’, now suddenly they hide behind innuendo and silence? That is part of the picture I have a problem with.

The old reasons are now clearly in focus.

Sport should be about sport and sport alone. The people in the field are all about that what they excel in and as such, it might be the only true entertaining excitement left to us. This atmosphere will always allow for officials who are admiring their team. What was more endearing, more powerful and more sportive then seeing the Royal Dutch family amongst the Dutch, all in Orange, cheering for their team! What a massive adrenaline jolt it must have been for those players to hear their own royal family cheer for them! Is anything more amazing in sports? Is there a chance that his royal highness, King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands shook hands with an official from another nation, perhaps starting a conversation? The fact that Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin were there for the match and had a conversation can only be a good thing for all kinds of reasons in the long run.
We seem to forget these old reasons. We get the sports, but foremost, we get the commercials and we get clobbered to death by sponsors with their trinkets, foods and drinks. That last part is the part too many are catering to. The bringers of news (especially in paper forms) are at least one third advertisements. Income is dwindling here and papers are more and more about keeping their (possible) advertisers happy. Even though these politicians can hold talks anywhere, allowing them to hold onto as many as informal places as possible is a given need. So, as such, for now, I feel that Moscow 2018 should continue.

If not, then Moscow should have never won the bid in the first place.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Ancient Greece, Angela Merkel, CIA, CNN, Commonwealth Gaames, corruption, David Cameron, FIFA, Gaza, Greece, Hans-Joachim Eckhart, King Willem Alexander, MH17, Mohamed Bin Hammam, Netherlands, Nick Clegg, Olympics, Osama Bin Laden, President George W. Bush, President Vladimir Putin, Qatar, Qatar 2022, reuters, Rupert Murdoch, Senator Charles Wilson, separatists, the Guardian, The Telegraph, Vladimir Putin, World Cup, world cup 2018, World cup 2022, World Cup Soccer

July 27, 2014 · 10:45

Changing the rules of Democracy

An interesting thought isn’t it? It was CNN that gave me the idea in the first place. It all started with the article on the upcoming Argentinian default (at http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/25/investing/argentina-default/index.html). I have skin in the game here. Part of my family comes from there, which is why it caught my eyes in the first place. This is not the first time that Argentina has been in such a problematic state. The last time was in the late 90’s when it faced the great depression.

So, why is this event such a big deal?

Let us not forget that apart from soccer, many regard Argentina, no matter how beautiful it is, as a third world nation. So why is it allowed on the International Capital markets in the first place?
That was not an offensive question, but I need to ask it so that I can answer the questions many of us have in the first place. Argentina is in second place when it comes down to South American GDP, after Brazil (who is in first place by a massive margin), it is followed by Colombia and Argentina has a GDP that is 50% better than the nation holding position three, Colombia. So, within the ‘third world’ Argentina is pretty high up there. The second fact is that Argentina has the 21st position in regards to GDP, so this gives a massive view to how big its economy is. So why is it about to default on a 1.5 billion bond?

Well, Argentina is playing hard ball, a statement that seemed weird, because in the light of Argentina it seemed like worrying about a shave on route to the guillotine (a fake fear many former French Aristocats had, pun intended).

My first thought was the ‘worry’ why the IMF was not speaking out on all this. It seems so outspoken on a little place like Cyprus (no insult intended), yet is remains silent on an economy a hundred times larger?
What gives?

Well, my faithful old Yahoo had a nice part on this (at https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/impact-argentine-default-100849473.html).
I particularly liked the following quotes: “The IMF proposed an international debt restructuring mechanism in 2003 but the plan was abandoned under pressure from the United States, the institution’s largest stakeholder, and the major emerging-market economies“, so the USA needed to keep Argentina as a cash cow or what?

The second one was “Under a US court order, Argentina has until Wednesday to either pay hedge funds demanding full payment on of its bad debts — or face a default that could have serious economic consequences“. So is this another USA hedge fund game?

If we consider the generic statement “Hedge funds are made available only to certain sophisticated or accredited investors and cannot be offered or sold to the general public. As such, they generally avoid direct regulatory oversight, bypass licensing requirements applicable to investment companies, and operate with greater flexibility than mutual funds and other investment funds“, we see the fear that governments are financially no longer run by governments but by those holding the credit bill behind the scenes.

This gives us a lot more fear then we should have to deal with and as such, it seems that democracy is no longer in the hands of the people, but in the hands of those managing the hedge funds. As such, did US District Judge Thomas Griesa buckle under internal pressures or is there something else in play? We should ask this question as we see that the response we see (at http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/us-judge-orders-argentina-and-bondholders-to-agree-deal-1.1875547), which is quotes as “Jonathan Blackman, a lawyer for Argentina said even with around-the-clock talks ‘it would be unlikely, if not impossible, to result in settlement. It simply can’t be done by the end of the month’ he said“

This feels like a game played with millions of households on the butcher’s counter, with the meat cleaver already raised up high. There is not enough information in these sources to clearly state how the game was played up to now, or the involved players behaved and how the international justice courts (not just the US) as such have been behaving on the given facts. The fact that the IMF has warned that an Argentine economic default could not only hurt the country’s economy, but also the global financial system is another fact in the entire game as this is currently playing out. What is FACT, is that we have seen hedge funds cash in at the expense of close to a billion people, they played a game that made them wealthy and left the rest in destitution, yet now we see more and more that these players are implied not to be held to rules of oversight and it can bypass licensing in apparently too many flexible ways. Yet, it must also be clear that Argentina is not blameless in this game either.

Not unlike the USA, when we compare debt to GDP (governments seem to love that comparison) USA is currently set to 101.45%, whilst Argentina is only at 45.6%, which implies that Argentina has an economy twice as solid as the US has (a false statistic, I know!). So when we play the numbers game, this default, or even to allow for this event to occur seems massively stupid in my books. The question becomes why Argentina is continuing to play such a level of hardball, the debts will not go away, Argentina would lose its place as a G20 member and beyond that the foundations of the Argentinian economy will be shaking for a long time to come, opening additional doors for investors to bail out of Argentina, take the first row boat across the Rio de La Plata and set up shop there. This in the end will be a massively good thing to Uruguay and the economy of Montevideo for the next 10 years.

So, how is this all affecting democracy?

In my view if we want to remain true democracies, then it is time to regulate Hedge Funds and their managers. It will require a level of oversight that is beyond reasonable, as the economic fall of the USA in 2008 has proven to require. In that regards the term ‘Vulture funds‘ seem very appropriate. The US and in particular its FBI are all about hunting down Loan Sharks, whilst at the same time they ignore a 2.4 trillion dollar market right under their noses.

Yet, in all this Argentina is not without blame either. Someone approved these debts. If we accept, no matter how repulsive that these funds, referred to the behaviour of vulture birds “preying” on debtors in financial distress by purchasing the now-cheap credit on a secondary market to make a large monetary gain, is as such opening a market, which is high risk and also at time high yielding, then we must accept that Argentina stepped, willingly or not, into a field with their eyes wide open, as such they largely have themselves to blame.

If these are matters of fact then we see the acts on both sides of the isle to allow and even mandatory pursue the need for a change to the democratic standards we see in monarchies and republics. If you wonder why I made the reference to the Guillotine, than consider the History of France, its bankers and the change as it brought order through Napoleon Bonaparte. The statement ‘War never changes‘ seems highly appropriate here, it is a quote from a Videogame, yet the truth behind it is as solid as the writings of ‘von Clausewitz’ and ‘Sun Tzu’. The question remains in these economic wars, who are the warring parties and who are the people behind the screens. You can be certain that those names are not the names of any elected official. Does that not change the premise of both economic war and democracy?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as Argentina, Aristocats, Brazil, CNN, CNN Money, Colombia, Fallout, Hedge Funds, Jonathan Blackman, Judge Thomas Griesa, Rio de La Plata, Sun Tzu, Uruguay, US District Judge Thomas Griesa, von Clausewitz, Vulture Funds, War never changes

July 25, 2014 · 11:23

Losing the house!

It is CNN that brought something to my attention. This is all about a decent landlord (yes, we all have them). An option was devised through Airbnb and as such a landlord is making a little bit of cash, as any landlord should be able to do. Yet, all this comes to pass in the extreme negative when laws are changed and we find out that the law is now more clearly protecting criminals and criminal endeavours. Was the law ever meant to do this?
It seems that California has a lot to learn when it comes to protecting its own financial future!
The story and the video (at http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/23/travel/airbnb-squatters/index.html), which shows that people using the site Airbnb to rent out locations. In this case a tenant, who paid the rent upfront, has become a squatter and the man, known as Maksym Pashanin is sitting pretty at seemingly at the expense of others. There is more to the story that is linked to Maksym Pashanin, but for now, let us focus on the landlord tenant issues for another moment for now.

The CNN story states “He and his brother moved in, but after 30 days they refused to pay out the balance of their account”, how are these people still tenants? Does NOT paying rent mean that a person was voided his rights as a tenant?

I was amazed at the massive amounts of information on the internet, more interestingly, the fact that there are ‘game plans’ for squatters and how to maximise on all of this. One of them has a “Wikihow” and a starting quote “Squatting, the practice of living in abandoned or unoccupied spaces that a squatter does not legally own, is a great way to avoid paying rent, if you’re willing to take the risk”
The interesting note in regards to the CNN article is “Abandoned or unused“. The other part is that the person calling himself Maksym Pashanin is that they call themselves tenants and not squatters. “In California, renters who occupy a property for more than 30 consecutive days are considered full-time tenants on a month-to-month lease with rights to occupancy protected under the state’s tenant law”
Would this not include the need to pay rent? If the initial part is not paid, they become trespassers (or at least they should be seen as such), they are not tenants as such and as this place was never abandoned or unused it is not a squatters place at all. I know that legally speaking (especially as I am unfamiliar with Californian law) my goose is slightly cooked, so to speak. Consider however that in all this, the actual intent and drive for this Pashanin person to pay rent, if he had done so, there might not have been an issue.
Yet, I think that Ms Tschogl’s goose might get a nice ending.

When looking into Maksym Pashanin, I found that he was ‘Kickstarting’ a video game (two actually). Now, this is a market I truly know! Looking at the Kickstarter’s project and comparing it to the CNN story I found the following: CNN stated the tenant details were from Austin, Texas (where he started he second Kickstarter project before the first one had come to fruition). The Kickstarter details states he is from Navarre Florida. Now, this person might have moved, which is fair enough. The issue that the Kickstarter project and through this his backers (for a total of $39,739) was not updated is, especially as it involves state lines, makes it not just a federal case, but particularly the fraud squad should take a deeper look into this. Consider that he does a Kickstarter project, moves to another state and does it again. So, is the FBI looking into this? I also noticed that the Kickstarter project had the release and beta set for July 2014, is that not really bad engineering as well as a bad business sense? Kickstarter has every reason to keep its own reliability high by investigating this.
The next part is less clear, the quote “The guest texted back saying he was legally occupying the condo and that loss of electricity would threaten the work he does at home that brings in $1,000 to $7,000 a day” gives us two things. It could be a bluff or a lie. Perhaps even criminal activities as this all should be taxed. Is it? We have a possible crime that goes over state lines, which means the FBI could help Cory Tschogl by quickly investigating this. If it is all true then the person claiming to be Maksym Pashanin could pay the rent and there would be no issue. In addition, if they have such an income, then why have a game through Kickstarter? A game that looks like a low resolution game and views substandard to many games produced 10 years ago.

In regards to the tenant issues, it is clear that this system can be played. The law should alter to clearly encompass that a tenant is only a tenant if the rent is paid, with no less than 7 days delay (in case people still rely on ‘the check is in the mail‘ option). When tenant laws were made, the lawmakers clearly ignored the need to protect land lords like Cory Tschogl, whilst giving a massive amount of freedom for scam artists to continue on their path. I read all the issues on how lawyers can fix this, yet above all else, state laws has a defining need to be clear, not be deafeningly clear for the need of lawyers.

If the American dream is about enterprise and the dream of one’s own home, California State Law seems to have come up short twice on the basic protection of a dream, not a good achievement!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics, Uncategorized

Tagged as Airbnb, California, Californian Law, CNN, Cory Tschogl, Cyberfraud, FBI, FBI Fraud, Kickstarter, Maksym Pashanin, squatters, tenants

March 9, 2014 · 17:39

Is gender equality too futuristic?

This is not an article for many. Some will be livid, some will be outraged and many will be angry. Yet, will my view be wrong? This is at the centre of what some call the future of women in high positions.

If I compare it to Law School, then we have our share of women, most of them highly intelligent, many of them no less to Law savants. The last one might be regarded as a cheated achievement, as they usually come from parents with law education or even law practices. They do have a benefit, but to make it in Law, you cannot get by on daddy’s (or mommy’s) tailcoats. You are either truly good, or you won’t pass past your first case. For me in most cases, it almost feels like cheating, as I would be a 1^st generation law graduate. I had to do it alone, no daddy to help me (thank god that the alcoholic is dead). So, there is no anger or envy towards these male of female co-students. As we see how these women are now growing the ranks of the senior, partner positions and the silks of the bench, we see how women are not just up and coming, they are growing the waves of the future benches of the courts. This is not a negative issue for me. As the women had grown in the legal profession from the 80’s onwards, they are now becoming the future of the high courts. In that regard I recall my first year mentor. She was not just bright, she was part of a team that wiped the floor (OK, the proper term is victorious) against the Oxford Law team. even though India won, the fact that both groups outdid Oxford should give you a clear view on how good you need to be. If we see the perception of many students, the regarded rankings like Oxford, Harvard and Yale (as we see Ivy League schools), then the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) did a mighty fine job.

How is all this connected?

I am getting to this. It is first important you see the views I have and the way I got to my view.

So what started all this? Well, yesterday the following tweet passed my screen:
“UK Prime Minister @Number10gov Mar 8
Tomorrow is International #WomensDay – see how UK govt is supporting & celebrating this year’s #InspiringChange theme http://ow.ly/ulkZ4“

It came right after a tweet By Neelie Kroes (@NeelieKroesEU)

Her headline on Twitter is “I am Vice President of the @EU_Commission leading @DigitalAgendaEU and #ConnectedContinent plans. I am fighting like hell for a EU you can believe in. Global (based in Brussels) – bit.ly/KroesNeelie“

I remember her as a politician (when I was living in the Netherlands). I never saw eye to eye with her views, but I do no hold that against her. What is important is that she is extremely intelligent. I reckon that if Albert Einstein would have been around when she turned 21, his words would have been “Whoa girl, you’ve got skills!” Let’s, be certain about the fact that he would refer to her political skills, not her skills in physics. Basically, she is one clever lady is the view of many.

My issue is all about the International Woman’s day as some ‘portray’ their support of it! I am not against it in any way, but let us take a look at the other side of this.

This we see at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/adfa-skype-scandal-cadets-sentenced-avoid-jail-20131023-2w0hz.html, where we see the quote “The woman told the court last week that she had been bullied and ostracised across the ADF after details of the Skype affair became public. She said she was offered little support, and was referred to as “that Skype slut” by her peers. The victim said the incident destroyed her life and forced her to leave her dream job in the military.“

The two men got a 12 month good behaviour order. The interesting part is that the media seemingly buried it after August 19^th 2013. Interesting how little exposure these issues get. I found two more items as they were places after the August date, yet this one (at http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2013-11-09/adfa-cadet-daniel-mcdonald-sacked-over-skype-sex-scandal/1217280) seems to add one more item. The quote “Today, Defence released a statement saying McDonald had been told it intended to sack him in mid-September and after giving him an opportunity to respond, his services were terminated as of last night“

So how should that be read? He was offered to walk or get booted?

This is not an isolated case for the military on a global scale. The header ‘Conflicting accounts open U.S. Army general’s sex crimes trial‘ (at http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/uk-usa-courtmartial-sinclair-idUKBREA260OK20140307) gives a clear view that we are not anywhere near ready for an International Woman’s day. As we see these transgressions go on and on. In addition, as we see the media staying as blasé and diminishing the exposure of such events, then you tell me how fair it all is. When we see a celebrity drink too much, EVERYONE shows it off to the maximum of the gettable coinage possible, which includes the Washington Post, the Guardian, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Reuters and such large ones. When we see the General being accused of these acts, the amount of newspapers that make it to Google page 1-3 is pretty laughable (even though the big ones mentioned earlier are also there). Why the military? Well, it is pretty much the last bastion of testosterone. When women get an accepted place without the psychic and physical assault dangers, then we are truly entering a new area. If you want to disagree with my view here, which would be fine, then compare the hits you get when you compare the allegations between Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair (US Army) and PR guru Max Clifford (UK publicist), so even though the UK is only 20% of the US, Mr Clifford gets 500% more hits on Google. As this goes into the millions I decided not to look at all of them, but is there any value to the conclusion that a PR guy is bigger coverage, or that the media does not ‘regard’ the alleged transgressions as such important news. The General did plead guilty to having an extramarital affair with the captain.

So why do I have this issue? As mentioned before I illustrated the evolution of Law staffing. A Dutch research showed only a few days ago, that the incomes are changing. Within the younger population, income between the younger populations of gender has changed. The women are now ending up with a better pay package. This is in my view clear evidence that not only is there more equality; the game is changing in a better respect for all. If both sides of the gender path will get the same chance to get the high coin, then we are entering a competitive field where the victor takes the spoils, no matter what gender the victor is, it ups the game and all will become better competitors because of it.

Yet, if we see the article CNN placed last year (at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/15/opinion/chemaly-tech-leaves-out-women/) we see a clearer view on why I think that there should be an International Woman’s day, but at present there is no reason to party on that event. I must state that I do not completely agree with Soraya Chemaly on her article ‘In tech world, women ignored‘. The reason for this is because as I got my training and degree in IT, the amount of women I saw was a massive minority. When I got into the data game in the 90’s, the women represented a presence of a mere 5% would have been overstating their presence. If getting to the top takes 12-15 years, then it will be at least another decade until we see a visible level of female presence in the tech world. There is however another side to this. When we consider tech PR companies like ‘Panache PR‘, we would see that the founder Cathy Campos is regarded as a global authority in the gaming industry. I met her in the days of Robert Maxwell, as she was the visible side of the marketing of Mirrorsoft (1989) and her drive to market the visibility of games by the visionary Peter Molyneux were ground breaking. She is not just accepted by all, I reckon the newbies in this field will consider an internship with someone like Cathy as the start of a possible golden future.

One of the statements I do not agree with is “The tech industry has a well-documented pipeline problem, one largely the result of gender stereotypes that reach into the educational system” Really? When I was into gaming, meeting any woman who was into games was regarded as a joke, both genders thought of games and gaming as uncool, nerdy and not worth the effort. That view only seriously started to change around the time the Xbox 360 was announced to become the hot potato of the future. So, basically, in that tech field women are less than one console generation old. When we look back to the early years we see the names like Roberta Williams (Kings Quest and a few others), Jane Jensen who worked with Roberta Williams on KQ6. Dona Bailey, who is an Atari Legend as she was one of the founders of Centipede, which is still regarded as one of the better arcade games of all times. Lastly there is Graner Ray who worked on Ultima VII (my favourite RPG series). She entered this field late in the Ultima series, but giving it artistically a unique view. So, when we consider these 4 women to be at the foundations of gaming, is it a wonder that the female population in this tech field is still small? Nowadays, we see a much stronger female representation in the gaming field, and many of them are outstanding in their own rights.

This is why I do not completely agree (not opposing either) the view we see at http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/7/5408194/how-smarter-schools-can-help-break-the-game-development-boys-club. I personally have never cared about who wrote the game, only that it was a good game. Consider that Kings Quest was one of the first PC games I loved. It was made by a woman and that never mattered.

So is it about the game or the developer? This is why I opposed the quote from Soraya Chemaly “Controlling women’s access makes men keepers of speech, keeps sexist status quo“. No! The gamer wants a good game, value for money, so anyone can get into this field with a good product. I reckon that especially in places like India, women could grow into this field as they offer originality in gaming through iTunes (iPad) or Google play (android). I reckon that 6 successful new female developers are all it takes to prove my hypotheses in this case. As additional female developers enter the field from MIT game lab and UTS (and other universities of course) we will see a clear shift. I do have a few questions to my own train of thought, which was caused by the quote I read (at http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/7/5408194/how-smarter-schools-can-help-break-the-game-development-boys-club) “Indie developer Mike Bithell tells us the lack of women in development ‘monumentally embarrassing’ for the games industry“. It raises my concerns on how wrong I might be, but is that because of the games developed, or by the games that get funding? You see, I focused on the gaming side, because that side I know from various sides. As I see women in Law proceed to the high places, I feel that my views remain correct. The ones who now will get the high posts are the ones I study with at University and they are truly good at what they do. That view is to some extend reaffirmed by the NY times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/opinion/great-expectations-for-female-lawyers.html). The quote “Of course, the attrition rate is high for men, too — but not nearly as high; in American law firms, the overwhelming majority of partners are men” shows that even though the men are in a massive majority, these are the partners that came from law school 12 years earlier. It took a while for new generations to get into these seats and as such the women we study with are likely to be the majority of high law ranks as they continue their law careers over the next 10-15 years.

When we get back to gaming we could see a correlation with the evolution of high placed women in gaming. If we accept the quote in the previous link affirms my position “Women make up only 11 percent of the total of those pursuing a career in the games industry as of 2005“. So, women do not select this track, which means that it will take some take until the top of gaming has an equal female representation. Yet, is there unfairness in this? When we see a current coverage of only 11%? So as time progresses we see 1 in 20 making it to the top, not because there is inequality, but because only 5%, which is half of the coverage proves to be that good and the math is on my side as I see it. That same math which predicts that over the next 10 years the women in high law positions will likely double, that same curve will apply to the gaming industry as women pursue in several fields they will take the lead as times passes. The issue that many ignore is that this evolution has been just a little over 2 generations and as we see the gender changes in fields, the growth of women in the area of visionary and evolutionary powers, moved to equality to encompass middle managers, which now leads to upper management, this is not a bad record.

As for International Woman’s Day, I am not against it, or against the visibility. The issue is that the field remains unequal, especially when the media is handing us a ‘stacked’ deck. How eager they are to steer away from certain trials, whilst in most of these cases they just spout the same ‘average leveled‘ information. The stacked deck is not in the direction that the BBC shows (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18187449). As I stated my view, that over time the percentages have shifted and they are shifting even more, but consider the issues as we saw it in regards to Jimmy Saville, not just what he did, but as alleged how those around him are stated to have reacted and how the matter was dealt with for several decades, that part seems to be ignored to a larger extent. Even now as we see the events unfold, we see the Saville jokes, we see the investigation, but the ‘support system‘ around Saville, as he got away with the amount of events does not get the media scrutiny it is supposed to be getting. So, this is not just about the women in general, but the ‘old boy’ groups as they remained around for too long a time. This is the case that many articles made, but I personally see this as the ‘wrong side’. I would much rather see how we see that now in Law, and how women in new fields, like Technology, Gaming and other new areas can more easily inhabit these areas and they could be ruled by the best in the field, no matter what gender. That is the side that does not get enough visibility. It should and the media should use moments like International Woman’s Day to show what is possible, because if it is about inspiration, it should be about where opportunity lies, not just where some ‘stated’ view on the places where the uphill battle remains. This does not mean that I am now opposing my own words, but that it takes time to get women in these top positions, which they achieved within 2 generations (banking examples: CEO Westpac and Christine Lagarde, IMF). When we look at a new field like gaming, which is only now entering its second generation, women are on an equal field, as there is little to no historical entry to content with.

In the end a true visionary will always be successful and get funding, simply because being the first implies that this person is the best and new fields are always ruled by the visionary (closely followed by the evolutionary visionary). Consider this last point; would it have made any difference to the success of Facebook whether it was Mark or Marcia Zuckerberg who invented it?
I feel certain that this would not have made any difference to the global change it brought.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Albert Einstein, BBC, Canberra Times, Cathy Campos, CNN, Dona Bailey, General Jeffrey Sinclair, Graner Ray, International Woman’s Day, Jane Jensen, Jimmy Saville, Law school, Mark Zuckerberg, Max Clifford, Mirrorsoft, Neelie Kroes, NY Times, Panache PR, Peter Molyneux, polygon, Radio Australia, reuters, Robert Maxwell, Roberta Williams, Soraya Chemaly, the Guardian, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, Twitter, UK Prime Minister, USA today, UTS

Tag Archives: CNN

Recent Posts

Archives