Tag Archives: GEOINT

When the numbers are…..

So what happens when the numbers are up for reporting? Samsung now joins Apple with the setting of: “Samsung has issued a surprise profit warning, blaming a slump in memory chip prices and slowing demand for display panels. It is the latest sign that technology firms are facing tougher times amid a global economic slowdown“. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/26/samsung-surprises-market-with-first-quarter-profit-warning) is all about image and not incorrect mind you, yet has anyone considered the stage where they are both losing massively against Huawei? There is a reason why a Samsung $1899 and an Apple $2365 lose against the Huawei Nova 3i ($499). Yes, technologically they both are slightly more advanced, yet with a difference of $1400 and $1900 the technological difference is way too small to take the expensive option. The phone was strikingly advanced on many levels. From my less than a day P7, I have moved to a 2 day battery Huawei Nova 3i and I am loving the speed and added options, options that might have been a little luxurious to the basic user, yet as my P7 passed away due to a dead battery and a 24:7 service that almost lasted 4 years (a missed target by 6 weeks). I had no option but to find the cheapest realistic solution and only Huawei catered to that. With the previous phone over proving its value there was no competition. So when I see ‘technology firms are facing tougher times amid a global economic slowdown‘, we see the impact of ‘overpriced’ in a time of dire budgeting that is missed in several plays and fields. We do not have that much to spend nowadays. Even now, working casual hours I hope that I will have a nice birthday (in 5 weeks) by treating myself to a yummy Nintendo Switch for my birthday, my one little treat in almost 2 years. It is the reality for many people and the number of people having to move into such a budget push s increasing, so even as all of them (including Huawei) are moving to 5G foldable phones, he pricing will make them not an option for close to 60$ of the people, or it is done under hefty locked down telecom contracts. Samsung had that benefit 1-2 years ago when a wave of people needed a new phone. Now we see that the bulk of these people are unwilling to make another $1900 jump, it cools down to a phone bill and a $79 extra a month to look cool and the people are realising that realism and pragmatism is the only way forward in mobile land, especially as the empire of 5G is coming and the next wave of phones will not support both 4G and 5G, that is the reality.

We might give light to: “Weaker smartphone sales and fewer orders from data-centred companies such as Amazon and Google have led to a glut of memory chips and sent prices sliding“, yet we forget the impending changes, changes that are noticeable in patent land. Even as they are all walking the walk, we see that the patent changes are pushing towards generic hardware and the distinguished changes that will be pushed through by using specifically designed software. It sounds weird, but part of it was introduced through software and video games. As a game was sold, we see that people could buy an additional season pass for all the additional gaming parts, yet in more than one case we learned that the ‘added’ software was already on the software but required a code to unlock and mobile phones are moving into this changed atmosphere at this very moment. I believe that all manufacturers will be changing the setup by not having 4 models, but one model that has the 4 elements unlocked through codes. It makes sense in a few ways. Having one hardware option is easier and cheaper and having the software set and staged to unlock the ability buy a code has been the corner stone with places like IBM for the longest of times. GEOINT software solutions have had them as well for close to a decade and telecom devices are up for that very same change in the near future.

I also believe that this will be the final push to amend international patent laws to make software a patentable item as well. So even as we are given “Samsung was forecast to make a 7.2tn won (£4.66bn) operating profit between January and March, less than half the 15.6tn won a year ago. Sales were expected to fall to 53.7tn won from 60.6tn won a year ago“, we see that the push for generic hardware to be a lot more generic soon enough. In addition, there is a danger of a cartel push as Apple and Samsung have elements both needs (displays with one and software with the other), we see that those who were riding that wave will have added value soon enough. Huawei is on that same wave, especially in 5G and now that the alpha will be containing the Huawei OS, we see a first stage where Android will be losing some market share. I wonder if Samsung will make a deal to kick Google in the nuts (for Android bolts only), yet that stage is now in view with some clarity. There is no way that this is a given, but the stage is open for it and that puts the light in a different setting. Everyone is making some speech on how ‘Smart Switch’ is all about on transferring files, yet the entire setting could equally apply to set the stage of moving Android devices towards iOS, and even as there are a few videos on it, we see a lack of IT places looking deeper at this. Some make fun, some are quirky, yet there is an undeniable stage that there is a push both externally and internally to make Samsung an iOS solution, whether straight out of the box, or conversion, Android will be under attack from more than one direction in the next few years.

It is up to Samsung to decide what path they want to be on and it is their right. Yet in this, when we see the long term options, as well as the optional changes that are coming, is another scenario still an option. when we realise ‘patent protection can be obtained, for example, for inventions implemented by computer programs‘ in places that originally denied software patents, is a larger change. It sets the stage for generic telecom hardware faster and more direct, whilst with the stage of software setting the device to its options, unlocks a much larger field, upgrading of hardware, opening options on hardware will all become commercial tracks holding customers under corporate grasp for a much longer period of time. In addition, switching out of a contract could come with additional costs and an optional cost of switching, and element consumers are not ready for, or better stated, the cost of doing business will be lacking larger size of awareness in all this. Even as I foresaw that change 3 years ago, I am still amazed that they got here so fast. I had expected this move in 2-3 years, yet as it seemingly shows, there is every indication that the next wave of phones might have some of these solutions already in place.

It also implies that there is an optional danger of phones and bricking, or jacking. As people want to get things cheap, they will at times rely on ‘friends’ having a solution that gives them options they never paid for and in the process their phone will be jacked in other ways too. When they find out the cost of doing business too late, they end up with a brick and have to buy new hardware, or factory reset at a cost.

All that from a mere loss of revenue tale?

No, not really, the numbers have been out for a while, yet the dependency of Samsung on their displays, and the income warnings will open the field to make the shifts that were in the wind a lot sooner and to appease shareholders, we will optionally see that hardware move faster. The US trade wars made it essential for Huawei not to be caught with their pants down, so they have been working on their own OS for a year, with a much stronger push in the last 6 months. In addition, the parts I casually mentioned yesterday, we now see (source: The Guardian) give us: “a financial app claiming to be “the most significant change in the credit card industry for 50 years”, and also extended sections on an app that will curate the best of international magazines, and a new range of video games“, this is a form of financial facilitation that goes beyond normal facilitation. In addition we see the shaky fields of data information that an American firm like Apple has never had any access to, as such the people signing up for it with a few baubles (read: perks) will find that their financial history and future will be up for scrutiny by all kind of sources that they are not aware of at present or in the immediate future. A change that will impact finances on a global scale, so whilst we see nations with encryption bills and all kinds of ‘national security’ poohaa, we see the people just signing over their data like it is Facebook day zero. As Apple sweetens the deal by linking options as streaming and gaming, we see new levels of facilitation that we had not seen before and all that intersects with new mobile modes and new stages of generic device hardware now depending on device software in the near future.

So whilst we all seem to think that this is a ‘great’ idea, some might not have noticed “the use of the Apple TV app for navigating and curating content from theoretically rival streamers, including Amazon Prime, HBO, Showtime, and, strikingly for UK viewers, BritBox, the planned new BBC/ITV product“. The younglings might not catch on, but this is a new level of localisation. Just like Netflix does not globally release events, we see levels of localisation (Europe, America, Asia, and Australia) and in the other part we will see this more localised. the foundation is a return to a local, national release of issues, an issue we have been aggravated by in the past when movies had a local release date, so like America had Star Wars Episode one, the Dutch population had to wait well over 26 weeks to see that movie, now we see a danger to return to an optimised marketing driven releases on Gaming, TV shows, movies and services as digital marketing prepares algorithm that optimises the value of whatever is released, wherever the market took them. That stage is not a given, but the elements give rise to the danger of it and even when we get some memo through any shady media corporation (Sony 2012), the outcome is less clear when there was a seeming miscommunication. The fact that none of them gave light to the fact that the Terms of Service is a legal binding contract and a memo is a piece of paper that can be rewritten at any given moment.

And as it is all to be patented, the larger corporations will now do whatever they like and open markets will be niched or denied entry. So even as we are given: “While both companies have blamed China’s slowdown, Apple and Samsung are also facing fierce competition from numerous rivals around the world, including firms in China that can match their hardware quality and produce cheaper phones“, we might notice that he name Huawei (and Oppo) are not specifically mentioned. As I personally see it, it will not be about restraining their access, it will be to deny the smaller firms as start-up contenders, when they cannot compete in any way, those markets will be pushed towards other players and for now both Samsung and Apple will be dependent on what Huawei has for the next 3 years, after that the bigger ones will have caught on. And that part is not sitting still either, Forbes revealed three days ago: ‘Samsung Suddenly Launches Galaxy S10 Ultimate Edition‘, where one of the important quotes is: “the Galaxy S10 5G delivers key upgrades in almost every area and for a significantly lower price than expected“, the Key Note?

It was not suddenly, or ill conceived, the partial plan that Huawei was too much of a danger was a given a year ago. I believe that it was never about: ‘surprises market with first-quarter profit warning‘, it was not about the profit warning, it was about knowingly taking a hit. The entire “for a significantly lower price than expected” is a hit, a hit taken to lower the advantage of Huawei and the setting for a stage for a much longer time. It is a brilliant move and Samsung knows and has seen the impact of taking a loss in the teeth now to gain the upper hand in the long term play and it is well played. The elements are clearly in the field, yet we see very little reporting on that and as the commitment is give, the long term profit is there.

There is a second part to this. The Verge (at https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/26/18282700/apple-vs-qualcomm-patent-infringement-iphone-import-ban) implies it (does not say it is so), yet when we see: “A US trade judge has found Apple guilty of infringing on two Qualcomm patents related to power management and data download speeds. As a result, the judge — International Trade Commission Judge MaryJoan McNamara — says some iPhone models containing competing Intel modems might be blocked from shipping from China, where they’re manufactured, to the US“, we will soon see a very different situation, when the hardware/software part is distilled and separated, we see a setting where a generic device could not be hindered and until software evidence is given linking the two, we see the setting where the verdict would be quite different indeed. the second part is given through: “The two companies previously had an exclusive licensing arrangement for the iPhone to use Qualcomm-made modems that are integral to bringing mobile devices online. In recent years, Apple has brought Intel into the fold as a modem supplier, and it appears that decision has had cascading effects that have led to today’s complex web of lawsuits. Qualcomm has also made the blockbuster claim that Apple effectively stole its technology and gave it to Intel, violating its patents in the process” the statement is not new, we have seen it, yet the tactic of generic device that is patented software driven would make for a much harder case for any player like Qualcomm to win. Depending on the hardware and the links to Samsung, QUALCOMM would be in a much tougher position, in addition the contracts would be dangerously precise, so either there would be an 800% increase in contracts, or a smaller amount of messy ones, which would reveal massive holes making the contract a lot less effective.

Contract Shmontract

Part of this is not seen, but a speculated change that Cnet reported almost two weeks ago. With “The Japan Fair Trade Commission this week cancelled a cease-and-desist order from 2009 that affected Qualcomm licensing in Japan, effectively declaring that Qualcomm wasn’t guilty of the charges against it. JFTC officials said the decision is “unusual,” according to a report from Nippon, and that this is the first time it’s revoked a cease-and-desist order since 2012“. I believe that the change that I speculated on is part of this. The larger layers are stopping to bicker over crumbs. In the stage of the generic device solution, we see a setting where Samsung and QUALCOMM would be the cornerstone of EVERY device produced lowering the cost of making and therefore driving overall profits for all of them. These contacts and cases are just in the way, so expect to see a lot more ‘amiable’ solutions to be posted in the news broadcasters in the near future. Yet the partial danger is missed, when 5 players set the 80% stage, what innovations will we miss out on? More important, what levels or which amount of choices will be denied to consumers?

The numbers as we see them are merely the start of much larger changes. Players like Huawei are not out of the race as their power is in another angle and they can still hold a much larger slice of cake in all this, with their victory in Europe they are still in the race, especially as the US has never been able to prove any issue of national security, so as the US is going that part alone (for the most) we will see more shifts towards protectionist solutions like the Generic software locked devices making that solution a much larger stage for profits for those players. So even as we laugh at people like Randall Stephenson (AT&T CEO) giving us: “Huawei is not allowing interoperability to 5G — meaning if you are 4G, you are stuck with Huawei for 5G,” he said during the speech. “When the Europeans say we got a problem — that’s their problem. They really don’t have an option to go to somebody else” a person who is flogging 4G LTE as 5G Evolution is telling us about a stage that players like IBM have played for decades, so he is calling a Chinese firm to be the same as players like IBM? How was that news? Yet when he is asked on why 5G Evolution is not, he is seemingly dragging his feet. Or perhaps he has already addressed the Verge giving us: ‘Study confirms AT&T’s fake 5G E network is no faster than Verizon, T-Mobile or Sprint 4G

Why does THAT matter?

Well that is the hindsight of all this. you see when the switch is complete we will get new issues on hardware versions bought and how the software will employ the wrong connection symbol, because that too is the impact of what you buy, the issue of profit will come with additional dangers of miscommunication of your own device. That too will be a future impact we all face, so there are intentional and unintentional (cause and effect) issues in play soon hereafter. The impact rises a lot faster, even now we might think that Samsung is on top with at present 1166 patents, yet when we see China where ZTE and Huawei combine 1629 patents, we see a trailing 794 patents and QUALCOMM with a mere 730 patents, this now optionally indicates (optionally as it remains to be seen where the crunch is) that QUALCOMM requires a solution that opens the market, not close it off, in one side the Japanese change opens their options and their larger need to be part of the generic devices becomes an essential step for them and now we see the predicament for Apple, they do not get mentioned in that part at all. So either Apple is already on another horse (the generic solution), or we see that Apple is in a lot more upcoming hardship than we realise and these are December 2018 numbers. the fact that Inter Digital Technology Corp (18 patents) is on that list and Apple is not makes for a much larger issue and so the previous Apple marketing noise of preferring to trail on 5G could be seen in a very different sight. And when we accept previous news from Apple Insider: ‘A 5G iPhone will cost Apple about $21 in licensing fees to Nokia, Qualcomm, and others‘, implies that Apple waited for much too long and now they are dependent on the other players making a much larger case for the future of Apple to be towards the generic devices, where they optionally will hold the software patents. It is speculative, yet based on the insight of the information that is for the most readily available, so when the numbers are up, they are not on the rise, they are merely up for review and scrutiny and in that light, we see that the first impact of a decrease of 50% from the trillion dollar value they held was not even close to the most negative view the people can hold.

There will be a larger scrutiny over the next three years, what is definitely up for the bulk is that the power of 5G will be Asian to a much larger degree, the fact that the US has faltered in this field shows that there is a lot more hardship on the horizon in the future. That part is seen when we consider Forbes giving us: “Our telecommunication industry never arrived at a single competitive standard for 5G technology, and our efforts to get allies like Britain and Germany to reconsider their support for Huawei, have been ineffectual. At the Mobile World Congress last month, the efforts were pathetic“, which now opens the doors on why on earth America remained complacent in the international needs for this long a time, perhaps hiring capable engineers might have been a first step. It is too late on several steps and the comment ‘leadership from the Trump administration will be essential from Forbes should be regarded as a statement from a most prestigious BS department, Trump did not fail, the failure started before the Obama administration and their lack of success in that department merely increased the losses that America will face.

The information is not that hard to come by, most of it can be to some degree distilled form the patent waves, waves lacking in the US and that lack now shows the downturn in an age where activity would have been everything, which is good for Sweden with their Ericsson as well as Finland with their Nokia, so let’s end this article with:

Nokia 5G -yhteydellä on tieto tulevaisuus (it would have been too easy in English or Swedish)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

How to get yourself killed

On the edge of the elections, we see new developments in a few areas. The issue is not the people trying to keep others safe; it is now to some extent the law that is aiding people getting killed. Here we see the first of a few issues, that first one being the Human Rights Act 1998. Now, let’s be clear! I am not against the HRA. The issue is that it is now protecting terrorists in completing their goals, which was not what it was intended to do. That issue is seen at the very beginning of article 2.1. Here we see: ‘Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

This gives us that Terrorists cannot be hunted down; the first rule is to capture them alive, whilst knowingly endangering the lives of many. In addition we see articles 6, 7 and 8 messing things up (in light of terrorism); still it is not a failure of the law.

The issue is that these laws were never designed with the abundance of terrorism to the amount we see nowadays. The fact that any armed police action, aimed on capturing terrorists is placing them in harm’s way, but in an unrealistic and unacceptable way. A policeman’s life is set to a higher degree of danger, whilst giving the terrorist a prolonged time to act out the acts of terrorism. It is in this light that we should see ‘May: I’ll rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation). There is a growing concern that the laws of our nations have been a hindrance in dealing with acts of terrorism. In addition we see another return with “It is possible May’s plans could involve seeking further derogations from the ECHR. This is the way the government is seeking to prevent human rights claims against soldiers in future military situations“, the question is not just in the laws, the issue we see with “May was then repeatedly challenged about how the Home Office, police and intelligence services dealt with the information relating to the attackers, after Boris Johnson, her foreign secretary, said MI5 had questions to answer. One of the attackers, Khuram Butt, 27, had been reported to the anti-terror hotline in 2015 and a third attacker, Youssef Zaghba, 22, had been detained by Italian authorities in 2016”, there are questions for MI5 to answer, yet it is not just them. The UK needs to establish to with level SIGINT (GCHQ) has been missing the ball.

Now there are two problems with that assumption of mine. The first is whether the European intelligence services have been keeping its allies and NATO partners up to date on movements. The second is how some allies classify certain people of interest (Youssef Zaghba). Without that knowledge we end up kicking both MI6 and GCHQ without actual cause. So it is not just MI5. We can wonder how certain borders were passed as well as how we will stop certain events from happening. So Boris Johnson is correct that there should be questions and answers, yet in the first only to the smallest degree and in the second, I would want to ask GCHQ a few questions before knocking on the door of Andrew Parker. The fact that he goes straight to the door of MI5, gives an implicit lack of knowledge on the address of Boris Johnson which is not the way we know him, so I wonder what he is playing at, at present. This now gets us to ‘Police and MI5 face further scrutiny after third attack since March’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/police-and-mi5-face-further-scrutiny-after-third-attack-since-march). The part that matters here is “MI5 has a staff of 4,000, with up to 1,000 more promised by 2020, to keep tabs on a list of 3,000 people classified as “subjects of interest”, who included Butt, and to engage in other activities. Counter-terrorism accounts for just over 60% of what MI5 does”. We can hide behind the numbers to some extent as we consider that 1650 keep tabs on 3,000 people. This implied two people to watch per agent, this in a situation where it is about resources. In addition when we consider “Another of the London attackers, Rachid Redouane, was not known to the police or MI5, the police said”. The numbers show the impossibility of the task. In opposition we get that either the UK becomes an unlivable police state, or we take the war to them and prune the HRA to a larger extent. Weirdly enough, that gives us the headache that the HRA is losing potency, something that none of the players want. We basically move a nation into a place where we end up getting ourselves killed. As Richard Barrett, former director of global counter-terrorism operations at MI6 states: “I do not want to live in a state like that”. So even the agencies want a non-police state system, as such we need to consider other evolutions.

So how to go forward?

Until we get an actual union of interest in the Intelligence industry there will be an age of uncertainty. As SIGINT departments unite to set forth the first need of identifying the dangers and replicate that knowledge we are at an impasse. If this reads weird, then let me explain it. The function of GCHQ is to monitor and report to the UK agencies. This is how it should be in the past. In this age of ISIS/ISIL we need to consider that SIGINT agencies set the data in one common database when it concerns terrorists. So basically GCHQ forwards Intel directly to NSO (Netherlands), DGSE (France), SAIC (Germany) and so on. After that (or actually at the same time) the obtained data goes to MI5 and MI6. As filters are removed the whole gets more and quicker intelligence on movements. There is no issue with Brexit or Bremain, this is about European security, and as Europe becomes safer, so will the UK be safer. This path has never been walked because the trouble is with containing intelligence going into the open. In this setting we have intelligence filters this is not a bad thing, but the need in light of the attacks require us all to rethink the issues. There is an additional benefit that the union of data could give additional clusters of information, clustering’s we did not have in the past. It gives voice to not just paths of interests, but a path of people that are a justifiable target in this situation. A path that is partially hindered by the Human Rights Act in a way that was never the intent of the Human Rights Act in the first place.

The issue becomes a larger issue when we see certain media. Now as we exclude the tabloids on mere grounds of inferior intellect and increased factors like being clueless and greed driven through the expanse of emotion, we do get some media that should have known better. So when we see “Dame Stella Rimington, the first female director general of the agency, spoke out this week (6 June) during a keynote speech at 2017’s Infosecurity conference. The former spymaster took the time to urge for a calm response in the wake of recent London terror attacks” (at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/former-mi5-chief-nobody-really-knows-how-deal-cyber-espionage-1625025), we see in addition “We are facing a world where there’s cyber-espionage now, which nobody really knows how to effectively deal with. We are facing a world of very complex communications which make it very difficult [for] our intelligence services to keep pace with changes taking place.

This is a path that has a few additional repercussions. The first repercussion is seen in the need of new technology to meet the challenges. The second repercussion is seen in combined need to evolve HUMINT, FININT and GEOINT. As money can be transferred through alternative means in faster ways and new methods we see that the terrorists are equipped and given new means to which several intelligence paths have no way to counter at present. The simplest issue of funding terrorist infrastructure through international debit cards is a nightmare to get through. Ordering these debit cards with up to 5,000 euros is getting easier and payment via web becomes increasingly easy. Getting these cards in Western Europe and dispense them to the dangerous elements in the UK is an increased danger as we now have a situation where HUMINT and FININT walk two very different paths. If we do not get an evolved SIGINT solution, we will see an escalation of events whilst the intelligence will fail. At present when a student is found with 2,000 euro a flag is raised (not always), yet when a student is seen with a debit card and 300 Euro, no flag will ever be raised. The cyber path is intervening on several levels increasing the dangers of a successful attack as they just get what they need at their destination. Nowadays a student goes into a car rental place, has his international student ID, picks up a van, pays with the prepaid card and he is off to load it up with explosives. At this point, when properly done, SIGINT, HUMINT and FININT will all have failed to stop this. This is the danger that Dame Stella Rimington is warning us about. And whilst the tabloid jokes are all about the emotions and the blame game towards the intelligence service, we see that failure after failure stacks up, mainly because what the intelligence agencies need is not coming their way. It’s like giving Jenson Button the task of winning the F1 trophy whilst giving him an Edsel to get the job done, which seems a little too unfair on the poor lad.

The world evolved too fast in too many directions and in this terrorists, especially lone wolves could use the system to remain largely invisible until it is too late. It is a collection of what we used to perceive as unrealistic elements ion danger assessment that is now stopping police and agencies in finding the targets trying to hurt innocent civilians. The game has become too unbalanced, and for the most I agree with Richard Barrett. Yet, in equal measure, we see a lack of evolution in technology that the seekers need to classify disseminated information as well as being able to cluster a multitude of databases each filled with variable information to find that needle, hoping that you are even near the right haystack. Consider the scenario I just painted. Finding that person would be near impossible if the Lone Wolf kept to the ground. So where is the validation of blame? There is none and the people actually realise this. It does not change the job, or the challenge. It merely increases the pressure. So when I read: “The third attacker was named as Youssef Zaghba, an Italian national of Moroccan descent, who was living in east London” there is no concern to be elevated into some danger status, yet when we see in addition “is said to have told Italian authorities “I’m going to be a terrorist”, while officers reportedly found Islamic State-related material on his mobile phone when they intercepted him” makes it a different issue (apart from any person proclaiming to become a terrorist to the police). How long until that news reached the UK? In addition, what did the Italians do to stop this possible extremist? When we see a file on Youssef Zaghba in the areas of FININT and SIGINT, what do they reveal? You see, we might not stop all events, yet there is an increased chance that any previous success by these lone wolves will leave us with information that potentially stops the next attack. That will leave us with increased options when SIGINT will start sharing the data internationally.

We are in a phase where we get ourselves killed, not because of the failing of the agencies, but with our complacency regarding human rights and thinking that the agencies did not need certain elements. As we are bragging on Facebook and demanding the government does not collect data, we place ourselves in harm’s way, which is increasingly stupid.

Yet in equal measure spending irresponsibly (read: Jeremy Corbyn’s lame promise) is equally dangerous. You see we need to work on actual solutions, not buy 1000 staff members, 15 servers and hope it will work itself out. That is a recipe for a political pork pie that leaves us with indigestion.

There is a lot that requires doing, let’s not get ourselves killed whilst doing that.

 

Leave a comment

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