Tag Archives: Guardian

October 2, 2013 · 12:31

About the Miliband Family

This morning as conservative, in opposition of the current Labour ideal I see no other option but to stand next to Ed Miliband as a son of a father, to stand behind him in support and stand in front of him as a shield in regards to this attack. What I just read on the internet, after seeing the news on Sky News is just too disgusting. I personally will never have too much respect for the daily mail and the assault on a person who has already passed away, just to get to someone else. Ralph Miliband, a person who served for his new country against Nazi Germany, who stood there, serving and fighting to keep the British Empire save is just unacceptable. Why? Because he believed that Marxism had the answers? Of course we cannot rely on the Daily Mail to know all this, as I reckon their viewpoint comes from a day and age when the Black and White TV was no longer there, a post radio tube era! Why is this important?

Well, many in England had not lived through those early years. In Belgium and the Netherlands in the years post WW1 life was hard. Workers in those days were there to work themselves to death for a chosen few, who would exploit people again and again. The sad part is that current events are bringing this age back and it does not scare enough people (I will get to that evidence soon enough).

The years in the Netherlands and Belgium between WW1 and WW2 were hard ones (not just there mind you). Books like ‘op hoop van zegen‘ ([translation] ‘Trusting our fate in the hands of god‘) by Dutch writer Herman Heijerman shows the exploitation of Dutch fishermen as they are forced into the sea in unsound ships. In the end people die and the owner would pocket the insurance money. It was Herman Heijerman’s socialist view on the capitalist system. For those not having faith in these issues, remember 2008, whilst the bulk of the western world is still reeling from that ‘Wall Street cabaret‘. The Dutch also had events post WW1 in the east of their nation in an area called Twente, where the Textile industry collapsed as it was confronted with the competitive practices from Japan. Belgium had its own issues and in those times Adolf Hitler came to power and soon after started his European tour (1939-1945). So Ralph Miliband, this Jewish sociologist was lucky enough to flee the horror that would hit Belgium and went to England. To be quite honest, at times it is unfathomable that Marxism did not grow as strong as it could. When the bulk of a nation lives in absolute poverty in the service of a small group of silver spoon people, that consequence would today seem like a given reality.

So, Ed’s dad, Mr. Miliband, a person with Marxist convictions ended up in England and served with the British Navy against Hitler. Whether he was there to protect England, or to fight Hitler, or even both does not matter. In the end he served like so many others and ended up as a CPO (chief Petty Officer).

After that he became an academic. He did not become an anarchist, a terrorist or an anti-social. No, he became an academic and a sociologist. It was all in a time before I was born (such is life). So the paper that attacked the Miliband family was actually (at some point) sympathetic to Oswald Mosely and the British Union of Fascists. Interesting isn’t it? Their ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts‘ didn’t last long and in that regards it is important to read the ‘Greenslade Blog‘ in the guardian, specifically, the one that was written in December 2011. (At http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley). It is an excellent read, showing in addition that the Daily Mail was not the only player in town. The Daily Mirror was on that same horse (that strange Mr Daily and his newspapers, right?) The evidence is clear that both had changed their tune before WW2. What does remain that Mr Miliband’s view was shaped by harsh events in Belgium. The Netherlands had its own ghosts. In Amsterdam in 1934 there would be a workers revolt and in the end under Dutch PM Hendrik Colijn, a harsh response was given against the revolt and in the end the police and military would shoot into the crowd. 5 people died. This event is talked about in a book by Harry Mulisch (the Assault). The son of a NSB agent in that book states ‘My father was ordered to shoot into the crowd of workers. He would never allow for that again.‘ With that he explains his father’s move to National Socialism. The NSB were not the good guys, but the sentiment voiced in several in these books reflect the sign of the times in both the Netherlands and Belgium. I believe that Marxism grew in that same environment, in an age of much injustice and imbalance. So when Mr Miliband escaped that environment, is it a wonder that he would favour the far left, Marxism and/or Socialism? His view as an academic should not be attacked. They should be heralded. He voiced certain views and let us ponder those views. I see that this approach shaped his son Ed Miliband and his son saw the wisdom for what it was and ended up a lot more towards the centre of the left wing. The generation that followed Ed’s dad is like I was, we believe that the wisdom is more to the balanced centre. Me to the right of it and Ed Miliband to the left of it, together the system will remain in balance (as long as we can keep UKIP out of that equation for now). I spoke earlier about returning times. We see now that the retirement age will shift. Meeting financial ends is getting harder and harder. Companies in the Netherlands are now advocating reduction in pay and overall working conditions will hit hard times for years to come. Labour has always fought this (not always in the right way). But I believe with utter conviction that opposition politics is the only way to keep things for the most honest and fair.

So as we end this small piece with a few additional thoughts and a request. The fact that Ed’s dad fought for England is a fact. He must have been good as he ended his service as a CPO, not a rank easily achieved. He ended up with a degree from the London School of economics and even though he was not a conservative, he was a devoted academic. He put his words to books and got 7 of them published. So a man of thought, whether we agree with them or not, they are regarded as distinguished works. If wisdom comes from the past, then the Miliband family contributed to the British Empire (I love the old names), something that a person hating that nation would never do. Finally, there is a book ‘Newman, Michael (2002). Ralph Miliband and the Politics of the New Left.‘ there is a little more at http://monthlyreview.org/press/books/pb0866/ it shows from other sources that the Miliband family contributed to the evolving English way of life. Books that end up on the shelves, unlike the daily Mail that ends up at the bottom of a budgie cage the day after if it is lucky.

Now for the small request to you the reader. Some will agree with the Leveson report (I do), some do not. I believe the article about Mr Miliband to be in really bad taste. This was not about ‘the right to know‘, I see this for what it was, a personal attack on the son of a deceased academic, who is patriotic and who cares about England. In my personal mind, on the wrong side of the isle ;-), but we can’t have it all, can we?

So, if you agree that the attack on someone’s dad, who had already passed away and has no defence against what is being done to him, then this coming Saturday, please DO NOT buy the Daily mail. Buy any other newspaper.  The Guardian, the times, or whatever paper you buy. Let us all send a message to the Daily Mail editorial that some things are just not cricket!

Have a lovely day all!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 29, 2013 · 21:06

More than just Syria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 18, 2013 · 21:13

Bankrupt or failed? It’s all the same!

This topic applies to two events that are hitting two groups. The first one is about one of the final nails that are getting hammered into the coffin that is laughingly called the US economy.

Yet, what is actually in play? On one hand there are the mentions that the US economy is on the rise, so why is the debt limit such a strong issue?

The second issue is one that is playing in the UK, but about that later.

For these issues we need to consider a few chess pieces, that had been ignored in the past and there is only so much you can do before those ‘forgotten’ pieces rear their ugly head. Yes, I agree that there are signs that the US economy is again slightly on the rise. More jobs are offered, people are getting back onto the horse of labouring enterprises. There is however the other side. The government seems to ignore the need to get their budget in order, they ignore that there is a consequence to non-stop borrowing. Excuse upon excuse, story upon story and where does this lead?

The issues got visibility after Sky News reported on a story that involved the interview with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. Reuters quoted him stating “We cannot afford for Congress to gamble with the full faith and credit of the United States,” Lew told the Economic Club of Washington, a business forum. Yes, he is correct in that, yet the strong story to hunker down on excessive spending is not loudly voiced. That same situation is what the Dutch government is currently facing. The story there was that it will never be like is was ever again is the story in the Dutch case. The pre 2008 life style is gone and likely gone forever. It will take a small nation like the Netherlands 5-10 years to get their spending under control, but it will never be as good as it was before. Why mention the Netherlands? With 16 million people they are at 5% of the American population. Their debt is around 430 billion. This is less than 2% of the national debt the US has and they have now announced austerity measures to reduce their deficit. The measures will be a helping of bitter fruit to nearly all Dutch. The total US debt is said to be around 60 trillion dollars, which boils down to $9000 for every person on the planet.  Basically, the annual US Currency degradation is larger than the total debt of the Netherlands and the Dutch are looking at the next 10-15 years of financial hardship, and then only if the economy has picked up to the smallest extent by the end of 2015. If not, then those 15 years might not be enough. So the summary ‘the good times are gone forever’ seems amply put. More important, as the US debt devaluates quicker than the annual interest payments, is there any way out left for the US but bankruptcy?

The RABO bank director had made a comment that ‘all will have to tighten the belt’. Sounds nice, but let’s not forget that financial institutions playing fast and loose with other people’s money was cause to most of these issues. The second link is that he is not just mentioning the massive debt, yet a small mention on how the Dutch have such a good retirement treasury. It is another first attempt to get their fingers on the one place that was supposed to keep a population safe. (at http://nos.nl/audio/552545-directeur-rabobank-we-moeten-met-zn-allen-de-broekriem-aanhalen.html)

The US seems to ignore again and again that there is a limit to spending, so the lesson the Dutch are learning the hard way is one that American is currently not ready to face. They might say yes, there is a limit, but then state that they are nowhere near these limits. I disagree! I reckon that the point of no return was reached in 2011. The outstanding debts are now a matter of more than just multiple generations. The fact that we are given stories about returning economies are one thing, the part on how taxation must be paid (and is not) is silenced again and again. the rich move away their fortunes to the Bahamas or other places that will keep it ‘safe’, in addition corporate America is doing the very same thing by moving their ventures to places like Ireland, which allowed several corporations to pay less than 0.2% in taxation. How can the US survive when people without jobs cannot pay taxation and the super-rich move outside of the reach of the US treasury so they do not have to? These steps are socially undesirable and in my mind it is a form of treason. How can a company hide behind the US as a shield stating they have rights and then move away as they shun their own duties? These ignored elements are part of the problem that is likely to soon leave the US in a state of bankruptcy.

The US claims to be a nation of laws, which is fair enough. I think that they forgot that when greed calls the shots, the law becomes a shield for criminals, whilst becoming an anchor for those they are supposed to protect. It is a topsy-turvy world indeed.

So as we move towards the next 8 weeks of uncertainty, as the Democrats and Republicans are moved into a space that is more polarised then sunglasses, we will see that some will get a few coins from the jittery movement of the markets. Also take notice on how some of these people proclaim on how this is all so much unfair and how spending just a little more will save the people. No! It will not. It has not been a solution for almost 2 administrations. It is time to look for an actual solution, instead of prolonging an absolute failure.

So time to take a look at the UK now!

They have their own deficit, but more importantly, they do have a different set of problems. The NHS was at some point to have some kind of system that would record some forms of information. (Or so it would seem).

The NHS IT system is a failure. So much so, that it is the biggest failure in UK history. I reckon it is big enough to be the biggest failure in European history, but that seems too much like splitting hairs. The program had cost 10 billion pound, which makes it a 0.5% of the total British debt. That takes some doing to be such a failure.

Why are these two events connected?

Apart from the usual suspect that both involved politicians, it seems to me that both situations require a clear vision of what needs to be done. In both places they are lacking. It actually goes further than that, however for that part, let us take a look at the NHS laptop.

The Guardian is giving it some attention at (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn)

To do this, we will need to look at a few quotes that were made in this regard.

“MPs on the public accounts committee said final costs are expected to increase beyond the existing £9.8bn because new regional IT systems for the NHS, introduced to replace the National Programme for IT, are also being poorly managed and are riven with their own contractual wrangles.” This is one of the stronger quotes. We are looking at three distinct parts.

1. ‘Own contractual wrangles’ looks to me that the wrong people were involved in the contractual parts. Too much baggage or too little know-how, no matter how you twist this, when the contract is about ‘disputes‘ the people are not linked to a contract, but driven apart though paper (not unlike less successful marriages). This all makes for a nasty ‘separation’.

2. ‘new regional IT systems‘ and ‘being poorly managed‘ means that this is again a track of issues that are set to how good one’s PowerPoint presentation looks, not on how well an infrastructure can be managed. It is a fatal flaw in any IT project.

3. ‘Final costs are expected to increase beyond the existing £9.8bn‘ Like that is a surprise? This means that the costing’s were never properly done. Even in an age where the UK had a 3 year bad run with the economy, it seems to me that proper setting out a charter was never done. No charter, no limits and no results. It is again the same story we see too often when interested parties see the government not as a customer, but as a gravy train with no end in sight.

The IT is no different from any other business, when they see a governmental place where the gravy train just runs through it and they hope they are the station the train will stop. In my mind I see these places as a spot with too many managers and not enough workers. This is often the situation in many organisations. When it is in a commercial organisation it is a nuisance, and if they do not bring home the bacon, they are often let go at some point. With governmental organisations it is a different thing, more important, when it is done on regional area’s where they all want to be ‘in charge’ it adds up to nothing less than a death sentence to any structure that does not have commercial goals. It will collapse onto itself.

Here is the comparison with the US government. Like the NHS both are spending huge amounts they do not have to reflect upon. Not unlike the US their incomes are going down fast as tax havens take away the annual incomes the UK/US used to have. So in all, we are a looking at an engine that is supposed to run whilst we allowed the fuel tank to be external and no longer attached to the car. How stupid is that approach?

Richard Bacon, who had co-written a book on failing government projects, said that the NHS’s particular problems stem from the original contracts signed before 2002.  It comes from a book he wrote with Christopher Hope called Conundrum. I am not disputing his view; it does however show that 10 years later a situation is holding the UK back. Perhaps a better contract team is/was needed? This all reads like my first item I mentioned. Nice that someone from Norfolk can see the issue that the London bigwig’s can’t be bothered to identify on a good day.

The issue I see is that the contracts might have been OK or acceptable at that time, but government situations require a different scope, and signing something that is holding back the UK 10 years later is really a bad contract (from the NHS point of view). So people were hired who lacked that same insight. It is not just on what they were instructed to do, I am questioning whether the right people were ever asked to question the outstanding approach to the long term extent it was needed to be looked at.

Too many are trying the same approach to other scenario’s, which is fair enough, yet those who should be in charge are NOT thinking this through. The mind is lazy, when something works, use it again, I get that! In this case it was not a solution and neither is it when it comes down to spending again and again to shove forward an economy that requires $10 for a return of $0.10. It is bad business through and through.

The one quote from the Guardian article is the crux ‘The government was keen to distance itself from the problem.‘

That is just not an option. Moreover, if it wanted that, it should have never gone near this issue to begin with. If we look at the BBC in 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15014288) the following quote comes forward “Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will say: “Labour’s IT programme let down the NHS and wasted taxpayers’ money by imposing a top-down IT system on the local NHS, which didn’t fit their needs. We will be moving to an innovative new system driven by local decision-making.”

Whilst in July 2010 the issue stated by the BBC (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10557996) was: “Mr Lansley also announced he expected all NHS trusts, which run hospitals and mental health units, to get foundation status by 2013.” So what did get done? More important, it states nothing about abandoning this ‘new’ system at the moment of release.

It all gets a little more hairy when you consider the quote in that very same article ‘Professor Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund think-tank, said: “It is a very radical programme. We have never seen anything like this since the inception of the NHS in 1948.“‘

It seems to me that this was another PowerPoint approach by those who talk nice but have no idea where the keyboard is stored. Certain quality questions should be asked from those who can only think in election terms. These systems are supposed to outlast them all. This is an issue which has, not once been properly dealt with in either the US or the UK.

How much more tax money will be spent on trains that lead to a place called nowhere?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 1, 2013 · 22:44

Politically phrased budgets

I don’t get to take a jab at the Guardian too often, so when that day does come (like today), then I like to enjoy every moment of it (overall it is still the best paper though). In this case it is an article by Lenore Taylor on the article ‘Rising cost of living, just an illusion‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/household-bills-australia-wages-rising)

The new ‘analyses’ show that the average household was better off by $5300 compared to 2008. Are you for real Miss Taylor?

Let’s look at some numbers. I have lived in the same place since 2008, I will even add to that that most of what I have is from around that time, and according to Energy Australia I am regarded to be a stable user, which means that my usage has not changed that much over the years. Yet, in 2007 my average bill was $160, in 2012 it was $275 and now it is $375. So in 6 years my electricity bill went up with a whopping 134%. the bills in 2013 have been less than $2 apart per bill so it seems that overall my usage remains the same.

Her reference to the ‘Natsem modelling’ is there, and apparently it claims that the annual increased cost of living is 1.7%. My train ticket had gone up by 8% (which was better than the NSW projected 10%) and my rent in the last 2 years had risen by 15%, the last step was a 7% increase. As the last two costs are costs we all see regular like clockwork, it seems to be that her article is only slightly weirder then just plain bogus, but that might just be my view on it!

Consider that many people have not seen decent raises in the last few years as some companies had hit hard times; it seems that I was reading a story with the missing bang of realism.

So the question becomes, is she just quoting a source, or is she missing the ball by a lot?

I leave that to you the reader!

There are other sides. Yes, groceries have gone up, yet the milk from my supermarket seemed to have been the same for a long time. In these times, even though I feel for the farmer, the fact that milk remains affordable is a good thing for me, as many other things go up. So even though the groceries, which is a chunk out of anyone’s budget seems remain almost stable, the overall cost of living did go up.

The second increase is the cost of one’s credit card. Most people, if they have a job, they tend to have a credit card. When I got mine, it came with an awesome 9.9%. And for a time it stayed there. It is now a little over 13%. This means a plus 3% rise, I am not blaming the banks (even though I would love to do that). When we consider rent, travel and credit cards, three of the most common items used, is seems that the 1.7% annual increase is just a tale, for the simple reason that most of the other stuff we daily need did not get cheaper and our regular cost of living went up by a lot more than 1.7%

So who did she write the article for?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

August 16, 2013 · 13:16

Political ego and their costs

I recently wrote a little about the Dutch Fyra train, a high speed billion Euro train that is still not functioning. There have been several pointing fingers, yet why is this such a complicated project?

You see, a project is basically a simple thing. It has a goal, it has requirements, it has noted milestones and if the project manager is a clear communicator, then that person has the easiest and best paid job of them all. That is the theory!

The reality is less clear. It becomes an increasing mess, when those in charge make oral promises and not follow them up, or even better, in some commercial corporations where sales executives make so many changes on the fly to wear the project manager down, so when things are asked, those sales executives respond with “where is it written down?” and the problem of it all remains in the clear. This latter example happens in several situations where the Sales department and not the project manager is in charge.

With Fyra there is a third tier, namely the politicians. The NOS reported last night that this group had been putting pressure on the Fyra project. Even though the testers reported massive amounts of events, flaws and even clear malfunctions and design flaws, they seem to have been ignored. These issues add up to a system that should not have been implemented. The political pressure that required ‘high speed train revenues’, in the light of spending was getting louder and louder. So over the heads of those people in charge stating that there are issues, the Fyra was implemented against the technical proven flaws.

I discussed the fyra in a previous blog called ‘Multi billion train ride’ on June 5th.

Now they have a situation where a train was accepted in this light of events and in that same light must be paid for. The Dutch rail roads do not want to pay and AnselmoBreda is telling them to pay. Even though it was never completely a fault by AnselmoBreda, there are more and more clear indicators that political interfering by approving something that was not ready seems to have been a clear interfering factor. So apart from the 7 billion in rails, they are looking at an additional half a billion for 19 additional trains that do not do what they are supposed to do. Basically, they would end up being regarded as VERY expensive non hi-speed trains. Then there are the annual interest and maintenance costs on 7 billion of rails, the list grows on and on. Consider these costs whilst the government needs to push 6 billion in cut-backs. Are you having fun yet?

So basically, a multi-billion Euro push, by politicians, who were guided by ego and a misguided sense of profit, the second factor was never a reality to begin with. If we consider this and see that under current conditions the Hi-Speed trains are not an option, then an additional 7 billion has been wasted. I personally wonder how many people will become non-accountable and in addition will be reason for a massive bill to the tax payer. Considering these events, the upcoming parliamentary committee might take a lot longer than many bargained for, which additional costs to boot.

So why are incompetent politicians getting in the way of sound business?

This claim is in this instance not about the present group, it was the previous groups interfering with this process, yet overall when we read some of the current statements on capping banking incomes, and then when it is decided that the new head of Robeco must get 30 million a year, nothing can apparently be done. Ah, the joy of claim versus reality!

There are several indicators that the UK’s version the HS2 is on similar tracks. As reported by the Guardian in July, there have been voices that the high speed North-South line, which will cost to the scope of 40 billion Euro is going in a not dissimilar direction. Even though the UK government is claiming a 20% nett return, the additional factors might have not been weighted enough. Consider that the current issues involving price hikes for train rides are growing between 4% and 9%, the group that can no longer afford these kinds of prices is growing fast. More important, these price hikes are now pushing people away from rail and towards buses for the sheer cost of it. This is an entirely opposing reaction to what the UK government needs it to be.

Those in favour of HS2 claim in the quote “This is a massively misleading oversimplification because it doesn’t take into account the significant financial returns that will be generated from an investment in high-speed rail.”

Even though it is given that unlike the Netherlands, the distances in the UK make for a much more viable need, we should not negate that this is about connecting London to Birmingham. I agree that it is too simple to state that this line is for all those Ashton Villa fans in London, yet the same flaw is shown, when we consider the actual issue. If the distance is 119 miles, then a normal train at 125Mph does it in just under an hour, then why add 40 billion to install a train doing 155 Mph? Getting there 10-15 minutes faster does not warrant such expenses, more important, considering the economic charges, the group willing to pay such an extra amount to get so little extra time would be dwindling a lot faster than some might think, which beckons the question “What significant financial returns?” it is not until the train goes beyond 200Mph that this all becomes a more interesting issue, which means a 20-25 minute saving on that part alone. Here I agree that some (not all) will consider it. The question becomes how much extra will people have to pay until the 50 billion returns is begotten? In my mind that requires a commuting population a lot higher then it seems to have, or the tickets will become extremely pricey to say the least. In my mind, the wisdom is in the middle, it takes a massive amount of traveller, all paying top pound a day. Considering that the economy is nowhere near that strong in the UK until past 2016, the costs involved might be way too high. This all in the end gives weight to the statement made by the Institute of Economic Affairs calling it a “political vanity project“.

So which cheques are underwritten by a political ego and can people afford the consequences of such amounts?

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

August 13, 2013 · 12:31

Bankrolling a politician

The guardian made me aware of an interesting twist in Australian politics (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/12/singleton-funds-sporting-candidates-election). The information as presented yesterday evening is that the overly wealthy John Singleton will be ‘bankrolling’ (perhaps sponsoring should have been a better word) two sportsmen Nathan Bracken (Cricket) and Lawrie McKinna (Coach of the Central Coast Mariners). Let’s take a look at the two.

To be honest, supporting Lawrie McKinna makes sense from the fact (even though I have no personal knowledge of the man), that he currently is the Mayor of Gosford, which for my non-Australian readers is a Town to the north of Sydney between Sydney and Newcastle. So, he has experience in the political field being the mayor and as a coach the man knows how to deal with a bunch of ruffians, which pretty much makes him ready to become the next Australian PM. Nathan Bracken is another story. He does not seem to have any real experience; however, that in itself is not an issue. As this is an election year in Australia, we see all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork, with the odd politician not having the ability to identify any issues he stands for. The latter part was quite the giggle for the Australian Facebook community. So there is no way that Nathan Bracken would do any worse and we all have to start at some place and some time. John Singleton will be sponsoring these two new contenders for the Independent party.

How bad is this idea?

John stated that he is fed up with the central coast being ignored. He was quoted in the guardian article stating “someone has to keep the bastards honest” and when we consider politicians on a scale slightly larger than just Australia, there is a genuine support for that statement.

The issue does remain if there is not more in play. Singleton has massive interests in the Central coast, which are after all his own stomping grounds. Real Estate, resorts and a race horse operation. So we are talking an investment value that is running deep into the 8 figures. In a business mind having 2 politicians on your side is good business, which is why I as the devil’s advocate am wondering whether there is not more in play.

To be honest, he is not hiding his involvement (like that was ever an option), yet there will forever be a little shiver in my spine when politicians are knowingly funded by a ‘party of one’ and to whisk such that feeling can never be good. Singleton might have stated “It can do no harm and it can only do good”, but that is one part I feel, which is too often never the case.

Still, we have had several remarkable exceptions. Dick Smith for one, who has put his money where his mouth is, donated tons of money on all kind of good causes, whilst not cashing in on it in the past. Singleton too has been involved in charity events from the early 90’s. Australians are for the most, not that greed driven like we see all over Europe and America. These people made their fortunes long before 2004 and they survived the financial crash without a too much of a hitch. They have more than enough money and they likely realised that they can’t take it with them where they are going to go in the end (a lesson the greedy never learn).

Still, there is a dangerous precedence here. I am all for people getting into politics, especially if they are bright enough and when their past (sports, movies) give visibility to causes and goals the people really need. The issue I have is when one sponsor becomes deeply involved, even when the person involved does do this openly, it keeps me worried.

The article does however seem to speak true on some issues. The Central coast seems to be ignored too often, not unlike Sydney it has youth unemployment. Not unlike the NHS, they have their healthcare issues, which seems to affect all of Australia and the youth suicide numbers are rising all over the place, which includes the Central Coast. So the fact that Singleton wants this dealt with on his stomping grounds is fair enough, yet no matter how fair it is, I remain to some degree sceptical for the simple reason that in the majority it is too naive to believe that large political donors will not expect certain favours, a view that is held by a lot more people than just silly old me.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

August 11, 2013 · 13:48

The Soccer ball and other sports

This morning, I was woken up with the information in regards to ‘concerns’ in regards to the world championship soccer. I have never been much of a soccer fan, even though I was born in the Netherlands. It was never my cup of cacao.

When I heard of the concerns, I thought that made perfect sense, then my eyes saw the pictures of the stadium. I think they are concepts, not unlike other images that Google showed. No matter which one will be build, these stadiums are amazing pinnacles of design. It left with me that sparkle I had when I saw the first images of the Munich Olympics in 1972. It was overcast by events that will remain a black page on sporting events forever, but the stadiums looked amazing.

So is this about the stadium? Not quite!

As we introduce sports to other parts of the worlds, the sports will take on a new dimension, this is equally the case now that soccer will be hosted by Qatar (in 2022). It brings small changes. I saw the concerns and I do not disagree, yet what are the alternatives? Play a game at dawn and a game at night? Play only late at night?

Are those not alternatives? The nights can be cool in the Middle East, I experienced that first hand for months, so moving the cup date until late autumn, or perhaps early summer/late spring?

These are all options, yet the first thing I heard stated when the winter option was given, was that it could interfere with the FA Cup. (The Dutch are likely to state the KNVB cup). So is all this about the cup itself or the issues surrounding advertisement revenues?

The World cup is only once every 4 years, it’s not like it is a daily exercise. Qatar is also the consequence for growing the sport. They won fair and square and it was voiced (and I do not disagree) that it should be held there. Yes, player safety need to be on the forefront of considerations, which is why moving the event to a non-summer month is a good idea in my mind. If we look at www.weatheonline.co.uk we see that March to May, if the matches are early or late in the day seems to be the best, after that it is likely to be October to December (which might not be ideal for others). The days might be warm in these instances, yet the nights are definitely not warm, so there should be quite the cooling when the sun goes down.

I do find this situation interesting, with 209 FIFA nations, this is the first time that players will be subjected to these tropical conditions. Consider these tropical nations playing under what they would consider Arctic conditions? These players in a rare twist of fate will have the home weather advantage, and if in the end Scotland or Sweden take home the cup? What a party that would be!

In the article I disagree with the quote “His predecessor David Bernstein said in June that any plans to move the World Cup to the winter were ‘fundamentally flawed’.” (At http://news.sky.com/story/1126848/fa-boss-summer-world-cup-in-qatar-impossible)

Flawed by what reasoning? It is a given that his concern was the FA cup, that is fair enough, but this is the FIFA world cup! Yet, in all honesty, I cannot truly oppose his statement as it would disrupt national cups in many European nations, which is a truth. Yet, the idea becomes, why must we tailor to get it all? Should these players be subject to 64 additional games at all cost? Seems to be a little one sided. However, moving it to spring could be an idea too. I reckon that this could work if we take the sport into mind. Many cup officials in several nations are now playing with Excel to see the advertisement and sponsor ‘damage’ that is a direct consequence of these events.

That part seems not to be too ‘illuminated’ at present. Yet when we read the Telegraph (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/8552114/McDonalds-joins-Coca-Cola-and-Visa-in-calling-for-Fifa-change.html) we read “McDonald’s joins Coca-Cola and Visa in calling for Fifa change“.

It seems that these three are adamant in maximising their view at every expense (bang for the buck approach), even at the expense of sports. If Jamie Oliver is to be believed, then the hamburgers from McDonald are not for human consumption, so why are they a party to sport advice at all? In the article by David Warner at http://politicalblindspot.com/hamburger-chef-jamie-oliver-proves-mcdonalds-burgers-unfit-for-human-consumption/ the quote is: “After Oliver showed how McDonald’s hamburgers are made, the franchise finally announced that it will change its recipe, and yet there was barely a peep about this in the mainstream, corporate media.” This can be proven with the Google search terms ‘Jamie Oliver on McDonalds‘. There is no guardian or other large newspapers and the one result link from Google mentioning the Telegraph states “Jamie Oliver praises McDonald’s – Telegraph“.

You might wonder how this is all connected. The answer is simple: ADVERTISEMENTS! (aka revenue)

There are issues on several levels and these companies have so much pull that through advertisements they have pull with what is written. Consider the fact that the large players (Guardian, Washington Post, LA Times) are not for, or against, they just don’t seem to appear in the first load of result pages at all (according to the Google search).

The issue I am raising is that this all seems to be no longer about the sport. If it was then those ‘big players’ would accept the elected choice and accept the unfortunate event of one year less advertisement revenue (yeah right!).

The next issue is actually entirely the opposite. I am disgusted on the horror Russians perform on the Russian Gay community. The fact that these people get tortured and murdered and the torturers take pride in publishing pictures of the event is utterly unacceptable. So I understand the fact that people speak out against this level of violence. Especially Stephen Fry made a clear case against the Russian Winter games. If you support this then give support him and follow him on Twitter (@stephenfry). I support him, but I am personally not in favour of banning or stopping the winter games. For me the view is that once we intertwine sports with political causes, no matter how just or correct they are, then the one door of change might close permanently. Yes, what happens in Russia is wrong, but if citizens who are going there as athletes can instil change where politicians fail, is that not a worthy cause? When I grew up I learned pretty much the origin of the Olympics as it was quoted on Wiki “It has been widely written that during the Games, all conflicts among the participating city-states were postponed until the Games were finished. This cessation of hostilities was known as the Olympic peace or truce.” Is that not how wars were resolved? In case we see America getting involved in this, let us not forget, that if one is gay and not living in San Francisco, often their rights are silently forgotten. The guardian had an excellent presentation of that at http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states

They might not show the barbarism that Russia is currently presenting, yet the political lobby has been using gay rights as a racquetball between Democrats and Republicans for decades. I still feel that in the end, sport will be at the centre of unification. If we see and accept (at least I do) that the African American athletes were at the centre of the equalising force between racial differences, then sports could also be the equalising force for sexual differences.

I just hope that it will be sooner rather than later, because persecution has never ever been good for any soul. That applies for both the persecutor and the persecuted.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 30, 2013 · 14:21

A call centre heart attack

The news has been visible and intense. For the last month the news, to some extent internationally is growing stronger and stronger into the crashed and clashed NHS. The National Health Service is as seems to be described, as a system that has buckled. It is an infrastructure that can no longer deal with the population size of the UK, where more people and less money are two direct causes of collapse to a system that cannot sustain itself.

In this regard I will only look at the 111 helpline. I am not an MD or a member of the Medici family; I do however have the knowledge of call centres and technology. So, I will go with my strengths.

If you want to read some additional material (quality information), then take a look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/29/nhs-direct-pullout-111-helpline, where most information is available. There was additional information on TV; however as Channel 4 chose not to transmit their service to Sydney, I cannot tell the content of that special.

When we look at another Guardian article we read “Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, NHS Undercover, found the non-emergency 111 system had staff shortages, long waits for callers, and in some cases ambulances were being called out unnecessarily.”

The second quoted from the initial mentioned article is “NHS Direct had worked on the assumption that it would cost on average £13 per call to cover salaries and other expenses for employees, but then found the actual payment it was receiving for its services was closer to £8, leaving it far short.”

The last quote comes from the NHS site itself (at http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Emergencyandurgentcareservices/Pages/NHS-111.aspx)

You should use the NHS 111 service if you urgently need medical help or advice but it’s not a life-threatening situation.
Call 111 if:
you need medical help fast but it’s not a 999 emergency
you think you need to go to A&E or need another NHS urgent care service
you don’t know who to call or you don’t have a GP to call
you need health information or reassurance about what to do next
For less urgent health needs, contact your GP or local pharmacist in the usual way.

When we look at this in a clinical way, then we should look at this with the cold IT heart we need to have when running a call centre.

1. Staff shortages.
This is plain and simple a management issue. How many calls were expected, how many came, what staff is available and what needs to be added. This in the best of terms is nothing less than a mere exercise in Excel. Even if there was a shortage, then we see there are two sides. On one side we need more people which mean there is a budget part; on the other side we see the expectation of quicker times, again all part of a budget.

2. Long waiting time.
When you go to the hospital, when you are NOT in a life threatening situation, then how long until you receive medical assistance? Would more staff solve this (would that actually solve it)?

There is a Dutch expression which boils down to mopping the floor next to a running tap. Basically it means that the floor will never get dry. That seems to apply to the situation people face with the 111 helpline.

In addition, this quote “its reporters found many patients were left waiting for longer than the 10-minute target for a call-back from a clinician”. Is that truly a bad thing? Let us not forget that this line was not for REAL emergencies. I have been to a hospital after a heart attack, and even though I got excellent care and they saved my life, the doctor was more than 10 minutes away. It happens! I am not the only one in need, and the hospital has excellent nurses. I wonder whether some expectations, as set for the 111 helpline, really are realistic.

3. Time and money.
When looking at the second quote earlier, we see that between £13 and £8, there is a definite discrepancy. When you get the needed and actual target wrong by 40%, management either did not do their homework, or they have not ample dealt with all the elements in play.

One of the clear signs as was mentioned by Sky News is that calls took much longer. When we consider call centre etiquette, not unlike what physicians do, we need to get to the crux of things. We need structured questions and we need to keep control of the conversation. This all leads to reduced times. Letting the patient (or customer) ‘waffle on’ is just a waste of time for all parties. So it boiled down to asking the right open and then closed questions to get the show on the high speed road. Here there is a slight problem. Nurses (Doctors too) rely on what they see and what they smell, these factors are now lost to them. This means that any assessment will take longer then they think, yet call centre protocol approach would limit these losses to some extent. This is a skill that nurses might not have. They can get trained in this and over time they will get good at it, but are they given the time needed? In the end this could also reduce the amount of ambulances getting called out unnecessarily.

The last part in this matter comes from the 111 site itself. “You don’t know who to call or you don’t have a GP to call” & “you need health information or reassurance about what to do next“.

Are those truly the right expressions? In that regard the 17 year old girl dealing with the statements to tell her dad “I had sex” and “you’re going to be a grandfather“. They fit the description, yet, let us be fair whether this is an emergency? (To the girl it really is!)

The generic description gives way that all in need of more than a band aid might call. This even includes mental health issues. Is that what the 111 number is for? If so, was the budget aim correct? These are all raised issues that I could have told them before the service launched. So the question becomes were they raised at all? Perhaps they were which takes us right back to the issue of 40% budget offset. What was missed?

In addition the following quote gives way to another question in the Guardian article “was replaced by a new system in which private providers and NHS Direct bid against each other to win regional contracts“. Really? So the cheapest won? Perhaps the indication is there on how the 40% difference of income is set. How is that a solution? I get the idea behind it. The NHS must find a cheaper solution to get part of their pressure removed and as such the solution of a call-centre makes sense. However, as the human element will remain in the system, we see the need that the problem could be managerial not systematic. In addition, we need to realise that coaching the health care teams is a necessity that usually takes 20% longer than most expect. That is not bad expectations, but when those in their field move to other mediums, they need to reset the scope of their skills. (Like the loss of information by not being face to face with the patient in person). That is just a reality.

This all is visible before additional factors are added. If you think work in a hospital is intense, wait until these people get to the patients who will scream into a phone because they feel that the connection is too un personal. It will happen. Take a person under pressure and a situation where that person cannot vent, then your goose is cooked. This will result in burnouts and spiking stress levels. Were these factors included in the costs of this project? If not, then you will see further escalations of costs and shortages.

The Chief Operations Officer Dame Barbara Hakin has her work cut out for her. I reckon that this is a system that could work. I personally belief that it has a future, yet, a system that is spread over a large area, with 45-50 contractors involved means that there are additional issues to content with. Is it true that this is just about taking over and restoring confidence (as Sky News reported)? I think it needs to be about communicating realistic goals (not the golden cost reduction some politicians claimed it might be) and attending to these needs and fighting towards those goals.

It is also about looking at all of the contractors and aligning views, requirements and systems. There is for example the NHS phone App. (or website), which could help a person in determining where they need to go to, or who to call. It could be that they need to call 111, yet these few seconds of going through that path, if that is an option, might even reduce pressure to the 111 service for up to 10%. That would be a big relief for both patient and service!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Politics

Tagged as , , , , ,

July 21, 2013 · 23:12

The law to hunt them down

Both Sky News and the Guardian come this Sunday with stories on how Prime Minister David Cameron is calling on web companies to block certain sexual child abuse searches.

That sounds nice in theory and I am all for hunting down these groups. Yet, that request is at least 10 years late and in all honesty, I reckon it is a massive waste of time and resources. How long until these perverts come up with ‘other’ search terms? We would even be allowing for some to get away scot free as they searched for “yummier candy” or whatever other code they would be using. The Judge would have to let these people go as they were truly looking for a place to dunk their bagels in jelly?

As stated, I am all for hunting these people down. Yet perhaps other means should be (should have been is a lot better) employed. Google had been so innovative in avoiding corporate taxation, are they not aiding the police (not just in the UK) hunting down these people? They have the hardware, the software, the expertise and more options on their shelves. In addition the PM should actually stop that gap which allows Google to only pay 0.0025% in taxation (but that is a story for another time).

No matter how quick we stop this gap of non-taxation. Google has in my view and strong belief a moral duty to train the police and other units in search and track knowledge (perhaps they are). They have no issues in teaching/aiding bosses to track their employees. Yet, hunting down criminals is not in their scope? (At http://business.time.com/2012/06/27/google-maps-now-helping-your-boss-track-your-every-move/). It was stated in the article that “the cost to workplace privacy would be serious“. Is that true? If you get paid by the hour, should you not be working? In the office, one is supposed to sit at their desk. There are always reasons why we need to go somewhere, yet we should be at our desks for a certain time. So it is easy and perfectly OK to track employees and we cannot track criminals? I get the issue that there might be some level of privacy in play for an employee (for example, his lunch break is his and his alone), but finding those hurting children are allowed protection so that they can hurt children? Such methods could aid the authorities in actually getting some protection to the children that needed it for a long time.

If we relate the options to track these child abusers to the boss tracking actions, we definitely have the technology to find these people, so what Is stopping us?

In addition, the legal side is also in play. If we consider the “Protection of Children Act 1978”

If we consider: “Section 1 (c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs [or pseudo-photographs], with a view to their being distributed or transferred digitally or shown by himself or others; or”

By adding three words we now let the issue no longer fall into the issue where the responsibility was, we now give pressure on the ISP to report this immediately. If not, they become part of the chain. Now, if we look at the defamation act, then we know there are issues, especially when we consider operators of content.

In Australia the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) states:

32 Defence of innocent dissemination
(1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that:
(a) the defendant published the matter merely in the capacity, or as an employee or agent, of a subordinate distributor, or a facilitator [or ISP] and
(b) the defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known, that the matter was defamatory, and
(c) the defendant’s lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant.

Here I added 5 words (those in bold), which could give additional levels of options to the claimants. It is nice to give certain services out for free, yet in that case, the facilitators will need to adjust their ‘terms of service’ to protect themselves and give aid in finding those using their services to further certain criminal goals. The reason to mention this is because when we look at the UK “Defamation Act 2013“, as narrated by Forbes we see the following (please read Forbes article as linked below).

The next part was in progress, when I detected this Forbes article (who had pretty much done what I was trying, at http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/05/09/uks-new-defamation-law-may-accelerate-the-death-of-anonymous-user-generated-content-internationally/)

It seems that the known issues of the ISP had been avoided here as well (an issue that had been in play for at least 8 years). There is a valid defence that  an ISP cannot monitor the massive flow of content, which is indeed a valid defence in my book, yet the cooperation required by the police to do their jobs is too often too slow or at times likely even completely lacking.

When we add ISP in the Australian case, then their lack of negligence would overturn their defence in court. So when we consider 32.1.d, then they will need to get active, creative and corrective really fast.

This translates to the UK defamation act by changing “5 Operators and/or facilitators of websites and/or virtual locations“; this would change the game immediately. Of course, prosecuting an ISP is not productive in the end, yet this part will give them the ‘negligence‘ label and as such, serious headway might be made in hunting down these child abusing criminals as the ISP is now seriously motivated to aid the police and find these criminals. The change would go further than those seeking materials. It would also give way to look at providers and mapping out these people far beyond the UK national borders. So as the map, with names, locations and acts will visibly grow, we might actually get the information the police needs.

I personally believe that law changes will get us a lot further then just blocking a search term.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

July 19, 2013 · 15:44

The Setting of strategies

The danger of any person trying to look through the mud that we know as political strategies related to ‘what is real’ and ‘what is unlikely’. There is no ‘non-reality’!
We know that certain steps have been staged (as a good politician would). This staging is not unlike the game ‘GO’ where we place the pebbles in such a way that entices to other to place their pebbles, completing our strategies.

This I discussed in last week’s blog involving the fading pension plans. Yes, and as suspected, whilst Dutch politicians are in vacation mode, the Dutch pension funds are now filling the Dutch with dread of a possible 10%-20% loss of retirement. That is some fear in their world of quick rising prices. (www.nos.nl)

Today is not about that, even though there are possible links! Today it is about renewed issues on telephone taps and how the powerful Murdoch gets another painted target. Yet are his words so wrong? We had the phone tap probe, we have seen the Leveson report, and instead of actually acting on the Leveson report as much as possible. Parties involved seem to be having another go at Rupert ‘the Piñata’ Murdoch. A lot or the press is getting a little sour as words are hashed and rehashed into statements of whatever they could be called.

You see, is this an ACTUAL criminal investigation, you know the one with barristers, judges and both parties taking notice of the evidence act?

Or is this another inquiry that has gone on for two years, giving more visibility to Chairman Keith Vaz and a few other political head honcho’s? Do not think that I am on Mr Murdoch’s side. I will instantly stand by the views of Hugh Grant and Lord Justice Leveson in the attack on the events that surrounded phone hacking, and not just the Sun/News of the world.

There is however the valid thought that cooperation is required and should be given. However the following quote “The committee has heard from the Metropolitan Police’s assistant commissioner Cressida Dick that since May ‘voluntary co-operation (with News UK) has been significantly reduced’ and that police have had to obtain court orders regards ‘requests for new material’“.

Is that the issue? This has gone on for 2 years now. Is thus the statement by Mr Murdoch “totally incompetent” when it comes to describing the acts by the Metropolitan Police entirely wrong? If this has gone on now for 2 years, then yes, I think it is time to look at the questions being asked, and asking additional relevant questions to the investigating offices.

Not doing so could turn this entire phone hacking scandal into a fair label of ‘Witch hunt’ and as such, I would see this as the premise to attack the Leveson report. This is because the two are linked. I remain in favour of implementing the entire Leveson report. Not because I am so much in the know of things, but because I have utter faith in the wisdom of Lord Justice Leveson. Those who claim to know and judge the report as invalid, whilst not in possession of a Law doctorate are required to remain very silent on the matter, unless they show actual valid documentation! I admit that this is slightly strong wording, yet having listened to a few people blatantly attacking the Leveson report in favour of unmonitored freedom of the press, after which I asked in regards to the reports footnote 417 in regards to the accuracy of information, their….. ‘emotional repartee’ in my direction gave me what I needed to know. (They had no clue, or better stated, having never read the Leveson report).

By the way, that footnote is “Clause 1(i) of the PCC Code requires the press to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures” (page 673, Leveson report).

If we could only apply this requirement to advertisements at times! (Big Smiles).

So we must prevent that these events to ‘evolve’ into a witch hunt. I am NOT stating that this is happening, but after 2 years that image is starting to linger and that is wrong too. My issue is with the statement that was in that same Sky news article (at http://news.sky.com/story/1117618/murdoch-phone-hacking-probe-excessive)

“In his letter he set out how the company disclosed 500,000 documents after 185,000 man hours at a cost of more than £65m.” When the coffers are at minus 1 trillion and student costs are growing and growing, these costs are only excessive if the government is not able to make Mr Murdoch pay for these costs.

I personally have always been to mind that once we need to focus and stretch the actual letter of speech, we lose facts of what is the goal. Basically, in these words I am wondering whether the committee has lost the view of the Big picture. (My apologies if I am incorrect).

So where is the issue of strategy? Well, if we read the “The Leveson Report: implementation” (at http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06535), then at 6.5 (in the full PDF version) we see some additional delays in implementing the Royal charter. I quote: “Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, my briefing says that it is not appropriate for the Privy Council to consider more than one royal charter at a time on the same issue. The noble Lord may consider that the Press Standards Board of Finance has therefore been extremely clever in what it has done and may draw his conclusions from that – and that accounts for some of the delay.”

So we have more delays. Granted that they are procedural, but I wonder how many papers have reported on that delay? I reckon not many! Out of sight, out of mind is a valid strategy that has been in long standing with politicians and corporate spokes people all over the world.

So is this a strategy by Mr Murdoch to keep the focus away, or is this an investigation that is getting stretched in a very expensive way to stop your privacy from getting chartered protection? Not non-privacy by government (aka GCHQ), but by those who are making money out of side stepping commercial reasoning for ignoring privacy for the simple reasons of greed?

The issues of strategies are actually wider set then most will think. Against the Dutch pension issues, there is the view of George Osborne, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is viewed in the subtitle “A majority of directors at the Washington-based International Monetary Fund disagrees with its own advice on UK fiscal policy.” which is part of the article at http://news.sky.com/story/1117069/imf-board-disagrees-over-uk-fiscal-policy.

Even though this sounds good for the Exchequer, the issues of no tax rises in the upcoming years (or after 2015 as he states it) is not just short of wrong (at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/george-osborne-deficit-tax-rises) , I feel that this could only be kept if a play is made to the pension funds (like the Dutch are trying now), as well as the shale gas approach which is seen as ‘frackalicious’, yet, we should not forget the issues that the Dutch county ‘Groningen’ is going through as it has seen a rise in small earthquakes giving home owners massive costs to repair and additional losses in house values. These issues are to some extent denied/ignored as the investigation is going on, yet the damages that the people see in the news on a regular bases tells another story. At present corporations are now claiming for millions in damages from both the Dutch gas company (NAM) and the government. (at http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/groningen/article9972913.ece/Corporaties-claimen-miljoenen-bij-Nam) there is also the claim for compensation to be awarded for the loss of housing value, which adds up to over 10,000 houses for up to 25000 Euro. (Yet one house in the newscast has a value decrease of almost 150,000 Euro). Let us not forget that these were only test drilling, the actual drilling has not even commenced. If the exchequer is depending on these numbers then he might be in for a rough ride. In addition, even though Isla Britannia is decently larger then the Netherlands, there is enough evidence that these issues will have a serious impact on housings and the environment.

If this is all about strategy, then playing the cards close to the chest seems a debatable wisdom. Because when this all goes south, it is not about the Isle politicians are sitting on, but the issue whether there will be a nation left to serve.

Should you doubt that statement (which is fair enough), then consider on how ‘well‘ the US claims their economy is getting. The fact that Detroit is now bankrupt should be enough concern that the American way is not a solution.
We, the Commonwealth nations must stick together to stay afloat and survive, fight together to become the nations of true prosperity again.

None of these strategies are ready for that essential need!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,