Tag Archives: NY Times

June 26, 2013 · 16:01

Senator Davis filibuster ignored

So, here I am, sitting down, working on an essay and even after one blog, I now get introduced to the weirdest news by other means. I have several news channels that I take notice of. There is Sky News, Sky News UK, CNN, Fox and BBC World News. However, the latest political news did not reach me through any of these channels. The latest news came through the Twitter account of Gamespot product manager Lark Anderson.

Democrat Senator Wendy Davis (Texas, Fort Worth) has started a filibuster. This filibuster is about stopping legislation that would give Texas the toughest restrictions on abortions in the US. Some of these restrictions include banning abortions after 20 weeks. Doctors would only be allowed to do abortions, if they have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. There are a few more regulations added to this.

This is in first instance not about the bill itself. The issue is that a filibuster is big news; the fact that Fox (being more ‘republic’ minded then most others) might not make it headline news is to some small extent understandable. Yet, the fact that CNN, Sky and BBC World keep on yapping the same reels and this news did not pass by once is a massive issue. Is this potato too hot to handle? Is this not news?

I am baffled at what makes the standard of what is news, especially as we get repetitive views on Snowden, Paris strikers, Haiti tourism and another bomb in Kabul. I admit that the critically ill Mandela is big news, yet with all the repetitions a 20-45 second reel on the filibuster and bursting out some of the minimum facts would have been too much of an effort?

So, now that I have shamed the press to some degree, it is time to present some of the facts:

Senator Davis has stated her opposition to Republican Senate bill 5 (Source: http://www.davis.senate.state.tx.us/pr13/p20130625a.htm). I admit that this statement is a little too vague and political here (like a politician would), yet the NY Times had this interesting fact to quote “The bill’s opponents said it would most likely cause all but 5 of the 42 abortion clinics in the state to close, because the renovations and equipment upgrades necessary to meet surgical-centre standards would be too costly.”

(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/politics/senate-democrats-in-texas-try-blocking-abortion-bill-with-filibuster.html)

So basically, the bill is not just about limiting abortion, it is a basic form of misconception into trying to ban it all together. I personally reckon that the admitting privilege was added to strangle any sympathetic doctor to step away from this real fast. (That’s just how I see it).

It reads like politics, but to be honest I see it as a dirty variety of politics. Let’s call a scalpel a scalpel, shall we?

To be honest I am on the fence when it comes to abortion issues. I am not against it, yet I feel that it seems to me (from what I read, not from any form of personal experience) that it is at times way too easy to get them.

The issue to me is that if it is legally allowed, then why waste resource on resource on these backstabbing methods, especially as the US has massive economic issues, perhaps some politicians should use their tactics on furthering the economy (or is that too tall an order?)

I am personally in awe of Senator Davis. Not just for the filibuster, but if you consider that when she was as just a teenager (19), she became mother and then still graduated with honours from Harvard Law School. An achievement most do not get when they get to spend 100% time on their studies. This proves that she is more than a tough cookie. She has received at least 2 dozen awards from all walks of life, making her a public servant with sizeable renown.

INTERRUPTION: Just now I see the message that the abortion bill has passed (Foxnews), yet more questions are now being asked, which makes me wonder whether the bill actually passed (I honestly do not know). There was only one other tweet on how the filibuster was halted.

So, this is not just about the bill (which is actually important), yet the fact how this ‘passed by’ newscasts so unnoticed makes me wonder what these news channels are all about. Thank heavens that gamers are about more than games. If not, more would not have been aware.

Information about Senator Wendy Davis at: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist10/dist10.htm

Those who support her can tweet so with the hash tag that I see reappearing all over the place ‘#StandWithWendy’

The only statement left for me is: “News channels shame on you!“

A noun of non-profit

The EU is getting a few more jabs using jibs, as it sails through the rough weathers of recession. Germany is up, France is down and the UK is about to remove their ship. If the Dutch economy does go up, it will be a plain victory through Nutricia as it shipped several containers of baby milk powder to China. As each container contains 20.000 boxes of Nutrilon (Source: http://www.nos.nl) this could be a first step to stem the tide of some safety for the Chinese baby nutrition. Yes, the article could not leave out the emotional side of crying mothers at the cash register. There is in opposition to the statement in the article little or no guarantee that supermarket hoggers will stop trying to ship baby food to China for now, as it is fast money for those involved and there are additional groups of tourists and foreign students trying to lend a helping hand to their families. This is the one consumer strongly aiding babies and the Dutch economy.

However, they are not there yet. The EU economy is no milk run as it is presently presented. It is not just the economy. If you think that just the local (read national) budgets are a problem, no it gets worse. The EU Budget itself is also coming up short. So that clearly reads that we have nations with a deficit, and now that the group that they belong, which also has a budget is ALSO in deficit. In an interview president of the Euro group Jeroen Dijsselbloem stated on the NOS journal in the Netherlands that the Dutch budget will get hit for up to a little over 500 million Euro (which was stated to be a worst case scenario). In addition the IMF stated the worrying condition of the Netherlands. The Dutch NOS reported the prediction that even though the Dutch economy will shrink another 0.5%, they do predict a growth of 1.1% next year. I personally join the group “Oh ye of little faith!” on that one and if they are able to get the economy up to 0.2% positive in 2014 than they would have achieved quite the small miracle.

The shortage, extra payments and several other ‘bad news’ moments we are likely to hear during 2013 would effectively prevent that 1.1% growth. We will know the actual number next year, but I am putting it out, right here, right now! I must admit that the idea of calling Christine Lagarde next year telling her “told you so!” seems definitely more appealing than a 2 week free for all in the Playboy Mansion (but then, as many have stated before, I was always wired slightly weird).

So, the Dutch government, who was unable to keep their budgets (like several other nations), and after getting a 1 year extension to get their budgets in order, this happens. The Netherlands is however not the only one, and this is not about having a go at the Dutch.

The French are also on the recession list. Or better stated, the French situation might soon become dicey to say the least. Even though their economy is not deep into the dip of bad economy, 0.2% is still an issue, especially as this is a continuing line of sub zero numbers goes on. If we look at the IMF Document called ‘World Economic Outlook‘, April 2013 (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/pdf/text.pdf) shows that these numbers who seem to be on par, are not that accurate. If we take the word from Dutch (NOS) and Belgium (VRT) sources we see that the Belgium shortage is now set past the 3% point, which is a big no-no as the EU had set an upper margin of 2.8%. So the account balance which was set for Belgium in the time range from 2012 to 2014 was supposed to be -0.5, -0.1 to 0.2 is now -0.5, -0.3 and ??? So we need to take into account that these were predictions, yet, if the numbers are off either by registration or by prediction (0.2% national difference is a lot of money), then we have another issue. What else is missed?

This is exactly why governments should not be allowed to skate to the edge of the ice (read maximum budget shortage) to that extent. All these predictors and good weather ‘reporters’ that the ice is good and the ice looks fine and the ice is thick enough feels to me that it would be part of the flim-flam confusion act. The issue is that even though these statements might all be correct, people forget that all involved parties neglected to check the quality of the ice below the surface. That part is now breaking off, in part due to many others jumping up and down on the ice for an extended period of time to the point that the skater now ends up taking a dive in the water and is starting to drown. There lies the problem! Should you doubt this part, than reflect on these events in regards to the Greece eternal debt.

Consider that the big nations are all in debt, even Germany. Yet Germany took a hard handle on their debts and fought it to lessen the power debt had. The issues that the other large players are stuck in a wrestling embrace with recessions and risk taking banks should not be lost on us. In addition several of them like France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Belgium and Slovenia are in a less good shape at present. When we then add Greece and Cyprus, we end up in a garden party with large portions of recession and deficits to go around for all players of the economy game.

I am not telling anything I had not blogged before, yet the issue remains and the game seems to be changing at present. If the UK, by pressure of its population is moved to walk away from the EU then we have a new situation. As long as the UK was part of the EU, they had a stable anchor in play.

Consider a large (really large) barge, that barge was kept in place by 4 strong anchors. UK, France, Germany and Italy. Yes, we to do know that most are in shabby state, yet, overall these nations are large, stable and democratic (that matters). They keep the Barge EU afloat in a stable place on the whimsy stormy sea called economy. If the UK walks away, then we have a new situation. None of the other nations have the size and strength of the anchor required and the EU now becomes a less stable place where the barge shifts. This will have consequences, but at present, the actual damage cannot be easily foreseen. Any claim that there is no consequence and they predict no issues, remember this moment! The Barge (as is), will lose stability and the smaller members thinking they are on a big boat are now thrown left to right then left again as the storm rages on. The smaller nations will get damaged and in addition, the weaker ones (Cyprus and Greece) could still collapse, especially if the UK takes a non EU gander.

There is however an additional look. Some could take at a paper by Edda Zoli called “Italian Sovereign Spreads: Their Determinants and Pass-through to Bank Funding Costs and Lending Conditions“. It is an impressive piece of work. and can be found at: “http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1384.pdf“.

The abstract states: “Volatility in Italian sovereign spreads has increased since mid-2011. This paper finds that news on the Euro area debt crisis and country specific events were important drivers of sovereign spreads. Movements in sovereign spreads affect CDS spreads and bond yields of Italian banks, and are transmitted rapidly to firm lending rates.”

Oops! That is interesting, as this is exactly the fear that drives some of us, especially when we saw Cyprus and recently the worries that the Co-Op Banking group is giving us and not to mention to unresolved issues on Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, SNS Reaal (now nationalised) as well as possible future issues with Banca D’Italia (The Bank of Italy), who currently seems firm and strong, yet if Italy continues to fend of the Austerity measures we will see an increased wave of issues that could have far fetching and long term consequences.

In regards to the UK, when looking at Barclays I found this with the New York Times in March 2013 By Julia Werdigier. “Despite the bank’s weak profit and legal woes, top executives at Barclays have been richly rewarded in the years since the financial crisis.” In addition it states “The payouts come at a difficult time for Barclays. While the stock was awarded before 2012, the compensation may still give additional fodder for critics, who have complained about the industry’s outsize pay packages.” That is not all! On May 7th Reuters reported that the Citigroup has sued Barclays PLC for over 140 million dollars for the 2008 Lehman Brothers party, a party from which some banks are still trying to recover from almost 5 years later. In addition there is the LIBOR rate ‘scheme’, which costed Barclays in the form of a fine exceeding a quarter of a billion pounds. Then we get Citigroup now claiming, wanting desiring and demanding over 140 million. Oh Joy! Yes the Barclay executives (around 430) ended up with a total bonus of over 650 million. So how much money did Barclays make? (Read on to learn)

This example shows exactly my fear. If we see the paper by Adda Zoli, we see part of the issue. If the national debt grows, the risk increases. The UK has a debt in excess of 1 trillion pounds. That is a lot! Banks seem to have less and less, and as such you and me (you know your average dopey lender) has less and less chance of any future in these dark days. Now, to be clear, Barclays was NOT bailed out by the government. They took the high road and decided to cut down on staff by almost 7000 (over a period exceeding one year). Like that is not additional pressure on the government? Yet, all these bonuses, which might have allowed them to hold all their staff for another 4 years for the price of 1 year of executive bonus.

In addition, Zoli’s paper is specific to Italy, yet that same approach might also be used to look at the danger levels in several EU countries. Take these facts and now extrapolate back to the big barge called EU. We can speculate that as people on the boat are thrown overboard. It changes the weight of the vessel as it loses, not gain stability. In addition, some get such high rewards, rewards that are kept to them, not used to maintain the barge! These factors will impede that barge even more and those additional factors are overseen and given to us in the form of ‘bad news’ moments that just pop up. Remember the extra EU payment at the beginning? So a barge, now less stable and a drowning population, all in the Economic Ocean, a restless pond, that is East of the Atlantic and West of the Pacific.

It is important to realise that these Barclays executives have not broken any laws. They were ‘rewarded’, yet Barclays reported a Nett loss of 1 billion for 2012. Seems utterly wrong doesn’t it?

9 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media

Tagged as Adda Zoli, Banca D'Italia, Bank of Italy, Christine Lagarde, Citigroup, co-op Banking group, economy, IMF, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Julia Werdigier, NOS, Nutricia, NY Times, VRT

March 11, 2013 · 13:23

Start making sense

I have been tossing and turning for most of the night. Something has been bothering me all day, and as it seems most of the night. You see, the Dutch NOS reported on Saturday 9th of March an interesting footnote in their newscast. They suddenly had this short part on the news on how this is possible. (Source: NOS http://nos.nl/artikel/482586-record-op-record-voor-dow-jones.html)

This is interesting, as I asked pretty much the same questions in an earlier blog called “It hurts every time, but we love it”, which I published on Feb 6th, so slightly more than a month earlier. The Dow index is currently at 14,397 (which was a 2007 record). The issue is that we had the crash of 2008; one in six in the US lost their house. So, the economy is not in a good place. There was also the mention in their radio cast (English and Dutch). They seemed to focus on two parts. First was the fact that Economic recovery is gotten through revenue recovery without staffing (so 5 do the work of 10, and they are happy to have a job). Second is that the Dow is based on only 30 companies. Yet, when we look at the number I wonder what game is being played as I look at a 2 year index graph. This graph is Stellar. My issue is twofold. One I am NOT an economist, but a data miner. Second is that the given ‘excuse’ feels wrong. Especially given that the news had this production line backdrop of cars, and none of the 30 seems to be in the car industry. So why not present this with a pharmaceutical backdrop?

So let us take a look at some of these Dow Jones Index companies.

1. Bank of America. A bank, and after 2008, we could wonder in what state it is in. This quote comes from Forbes and was written by Halah Touryalai, one of the Forbes Writers “No bank knows that better than Bank of America which has agreed to pay a jaw-dropping $42 billion, settling credit and mortgage-related legal battles in just the last three years“.

OK, if we take that into consideration, then seems a little weird that their stock graph has the same shape as that of the DOW. (As one of the 30, it would make sense that the graphs are shaped similar, however, such confidence after such a legal fee settlement bill?)

2. JP Morgan Chase. Another Bank! It had two more dips then BofA, yet overall it is in an upwards movement as well. It was also mentioned in the same Forbes article as before on settlement fees, but those fees were a lot lower. The Bank of America had to chew on 66% of the total settlement fees by itself, so for the other 5 big banks, the damage was relatively small in that regard. However, In April and May 2012 they had lost more than six billion dollars on derivative trades that had gone bad. There was a report of 9 billion in total, which also involved Bruno Iksil for part of the mentioned amount, he is also known as ‘the London Whale’. The numbers and the names vary when we look at UK and US papers, but overall they pretty much tell the same story. It is interesting that JP seemed to bounce back within 6 months to stock values higher than before the June 4th 2012 dip. Last on my list is Boeing. It is a giant, but we have all heard of the 787 issues and it’s now named ‘Nightmare liner’. The issue is all about batteries, yet the news from January as reported by Reuters : The new production forecast raised some eyebrows. Russell Solomon at Moody’s Investors Service was forecasting 100 787 deliveries and said Boeing’s forecast of more than 60 was “significantly weaker than we had expected.” Interesting that what analysts expect and what the vibe says Boeing will be delivering is off by almost 40%. Suddenly NOT meeting expectations has almost no impact? 40% less on a firm the size of Boeing should have a very visible effect (imho).

Now the DJI is about 27 other companies and there are only two banks in it. It is also a fact that these banks work with securities and values in the hundreds of billions, so are my concerns just a storm in a teacup?

It is a valid question, and I also ask myself this question. Let us take a look at the two following thoughts.

1. US debt. It is set at 16.6 TRILLION dollars. The total US debt is a lot higher. That one is $59.1 TRILLION.
Can anyone even imagine those numbers? Now consider that someone has that kind of money. To be honest is that really true? Is there a group of nations with that level of wealth? the only nation capable of owning that much is one with an abundance of oil, so basically the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the only one that wealthy. Either the US is labelled UAE-west, or my thoughts are not that correct in this instance. So perhaps I am wrong (I will be the first one to admit that).
We know that most value trades are now done digital. It is the only way for the market to move such amounts of wealth. However, who checks this?

I have seen my share of digital forms of miscommunication by loads of people in several fields. Often they seem connected to the corporate headquarters of Bloated, Botched, Bungled and Baboon. An always newly formed enterprise, coming to a local public stock market near you. Consider that this is done on the electronic super highway. Now consider that Hackers come at a dozen a dime and greed is eternal, these last two are given facts. Also realise that ANY system can be gotten at. DARPA and the NSA proved that more than once.

The valid question loudly remains: “Who truly checks the validity of trade and the numbers they are traded at?”

2. LIBOR scandal. I wrote about it, the news has talked about it in abundance. Last week in an article by Mark Scott in the NY Times on March 5th the following was stated “The review published by the Financial Services Authority, the country’s regulator, said there had not been a major failure of oversight by local authorities, but it added that officials had become too focused on containing the financial crisis to analyse information connected with the potential rate-rigging”

This is a fair enough statement (it did seem shallow in relation to the handed fines), and them be hefty fines, so why are these two events related? Well, in my mind there are two parts of the LIBOR that were in play. From my point of view there are two variables that might be played with. The first one we know. It is the interest rate; the second one is the bigger issue. You see, those percentages are linked to a total sum of $350 trillion in UK registered derivatives. That is 20 times the US national debt. If people play with one, there is every reason to suspect that they might have played with the other. So again, who controls those totals that are being traded in? If derivatives include hedge funds, swaps and forward rate agreements then we should be worried. Consider as well that the US Bank for International Settlements holds almost twice the value the UK seems to be registering.

So, we are now confronted with just in excess of 1000 TRILLION dollars. How can this even be monitored? Now let us add one more part. The US LIBOR rate is set by 18 banks. The two banks in the DJI are members. Are we all on the same page now? The third bank (Citi) is to be given a fine in regards to percentage ‘tweaking’. According to Reuters, later this year, a new set of settlements will be ‘delivered’. In their publication of March 8th by Kirstin Ridley and Philipp Halstrick it states that: “Deutsche, Citi and JPM are the banks named in regulatory circles as those candidates near the next settlements,” said the second source. So now we have both a DJI member and libor member in this illustrious ‘donation’ scheme. What else is at play?

What if the total value is not correct? What if they did not just play with the percentages, but the total package of the trade able amount? Let’s just take a fictive 5%. Mainly because I feel not so comfortable with the value they say they have and in part because I cannot even comprehend that much, as we get above the $200 trillion range. So, if 5% is taken off the total amount of over $1000 Trillion, would mean that we might all be devaluated by a total of 50 trillion dollars. That comes down to $8400 for every citizen on the planet. Did we sign up for that invoice?

It might be just be me (and I can happily live with that notion), but can bankers and financial corporations be allowed to continue on this track? We have seen clear evidence that those places cannot be trusted with even a small speckle of such amounts. Even though they NEVER broke any laws initially, LIBOR shows that some are very willing to do that. With the US on the edge of bankruptcy (or on the wrong side of a fiscal abyss), with the financial industry in such disarray, what can be done?

So when this all falls over (not if it falls over), what will we be left with?

The military Pound

We do not need to look far to see that cut backs are more than just the talk of the town. They have been the talk of nations for a long time, and we have seen more than one system discussed when it comes to the need for overspending.

So, when many read about the fact that the military overspend again we might not have looked to be too overly surprised. It is however the proverbial straw that is breaking the camel’s back. This is what was said on Sky News on Feb 28th “Britain’s Ministry of Defence has been slammed after a report showed between 2009 and 2011 it bought STG 1.5 billion ($A2.24 billion) worth of equipment more than it used.“

The article was short, to the point and ended with “The ministry is to introduce controls that it hopes will reduce spending on inventory by STG 500 million a year by 2015.“

So, the British consumer will be confronted with taxation on overspending by almost 2 billion until that time? How is that fair. This is not the end of it. There is a lot more. This is the clear part where we are confronted with overspendings; however, there are a few more issues at play.

The New York Times published a story in July 2006 named “Pentagon Struggles With Cost Overruns and Delays“. In this example they went over the costs of the F-22a Raptor. It was a track from 1991 until 2010 that showed a massive amount of overspending. The response as stated in the New York Times was “We must transform the way the department works and what it works on, he said. It could be said that it’s a matter of life and death — ultimately, every American’s.“

So was that an answer? It seems not. Because that same story repeats itself when we look at headlines involving the F-35. “$24 billion British budget blow-out in black hole F-35 project“.

It seems that the boys in uniform seem oblivious to words like ‘common sense’, ‘budgets’, ‘overspending’ and you know, words of that general direction. Now I am all for a good defence, yet the parties involved seem to be either completely academically ineffective (incompetent seems too hard a word), or those paying are really lacking a certain level of backbone. Especially when budgets are overstretched the way they are. Am I having a go at the Australian and UK admin soldiers? I am not sure. Who made these decisions? Who allowed for these levels of overspending? These are serious questions that need answers and it needs more then investigation, it requires ACTUAL actions being taken. I am not talking about some political inquest wasting even more time and money. No! Defence needs to take a look at their laundry and fix this. It seems clear and shown that this needs fixing on several levels.

In the meantime solutions must be found, especially when it is clear that almost all parties in the commonwealth have to tighten the belt on budgets all over the place. It seems very unfair that even though the military are to most the visible part to defend a nation, the people placing their lives in harm’s way on a daily basis are having their budgets cut severely.

You know, I have a nice idea, right out of the extreme right field. Lockheed Martin donates 1% of paid costs by the DOD to the Metropolitan police as a show of good faith. Not all will be happy with this idea, but several will be less unhappy and the way the costs are cut especially to the police departments. It seems only fair. Who knows, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe might arrive in the office on a Monday morning holding on to a cheque and wearing a large smile (be not afraid if that happens). The same could be done for the RAAF. I reckon Commissioner Scipione might be happy to know that in the end, overspending almost 30% per F-35 unit (an unacceptable amount of overspending per unit) the police force will get a small shiny future. The other option is for the RAF to order 14 less F-35’s and the RAAF orders 2-3 less and these police departments get those funds directly.

There is however a deeper part to those rumours. Is the F-35 too overpriced and are we moving to a previous model (the F-22)? Even though several sources implied certain noises, there is no real knowledge at present (or better stated, known to me) that this is actually happening. It would be interesting as the NY Times reported that the F-22 had its last delivery in 2010. If so, should we pay full price for a model taken out of production? Would you pay sticker price for a 2010 Toyota? This seems more than a little unfair. Not to mention that we seem to reward/ignore a blatant budget overrun for two planes by the same company. A ‘ploy’ they seem to have handled since 1991. That means they did not seem to have cleaned up their act for two decades.

So we have two issues.

1. Commonwealth armies seem to be overspending by a lot and on needless things.
2. Commonwealth armies are confronted and left with much higher bills by their suppliers.

I am not claiming that the military are doing this on an intentional basis to waste money, but it stands to reason that we should ask questions when the size of the British forces is set around 225,000 and there seems to be an annual overdraft of 800 million dollars. The Australian Defence forces are not without fault either. This was mentioned in an article by the SMH, however I personally thought that this article asked more questions on the numbers they reported, then on the actual issue.

There is another side to this, and this was voiced by President Obama on Feb 19th as mentioned in the Guardian. “Obama warns Congress over spending cuts: ‘People will lose their jobs‘”. This is not an unfair statement. Yet the issue that is not mentioned is that overall, the profit margin for those companies is often a lot larger than most commercial companies seem to be left with, and THAT part seems to have never been curbed. That was illustrated in an article in Aviation week by Joe Anselmo on May 18, 2012. There it was quoted that “A Wall Street research firm says defense contractors should be able to maintain their profit margins even as Pentagon spending declines“. That seems to prove the thoughts that others have as well as myself. So, these are not unique thoughts. These are thoughts that have been in play for a long time, so when we are looking at recessions and budget issues, it seems to me that there is at least one player in town who gets to play with a stacked deck.

I hope the message is getting through. There is a massive amount of needless overspending and there currently seems to be no planned solution to properly curb this enthusiastic method of an open wallet policy.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Military

Tagged as budget, F-22, F-35, Guardian, Lockheed Martin, military, NY Times, pentagon, RAAF, RAF, Scipione, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe

February 13, 2013 · 00:33

Press legislation, or not?

It was not too long ago, that we heard all manner of harsh words and political contemplations on those bad bad bad press folks. All those phone hackers!

And yes, it did not take too long for parties to react and a long investigation started. It resulted in a report by the Honourable Lord Justice Leveson spanning around 2000 pages, making it a bigger work then the Lord of the Rings; yet, I guarantee it, not as entertaining to read. Many seem to agree with me. The issue however, is not the entertainment, but it was a serious look at the visibly failing ethicality of the press and it’s ‘assistants’.

Yet, it seems that the views from that report will be largely ignored. We await the release of a Royal charter for PRESS regulations in the coming week. So, how do we feel about this? The Guardian reported on the possible compromise by Labour. No matter where you stand as Labour, Tory or Independent. It is clear that there is a high issue. The PM mentioned the dangers on infringing free speech. Whether we see this as a compromise towards the press, or the ideological view is OUR view, and the view of the PM. We all fear dangers and threats to free speech and history proved that this fear is rightly so.
The issue more than team Murdoch getting caught with their fingers in the bugging cookie jar. It is about the standard and ethics of the journo’s that is the question. The evidence seems clear and overwhelming that as their papers need revenue to keep value, some were eager for money (read income) and had not too many issues throwing ethics straight into the Thames and have a free for all.

The questions then becomes, is the PM correct and should the charter suffice, OR is his honour correct and the need for legislation becomes paramount. His deputy Nick Clegg has been outspoken on the side of the Leveson report, and as such it is that the top players do not see eye to eye on this matter.

The question is whether it is a clear eye to eye, or that the involved parties (read people of the press) have lost the credibility and trust to continue the way they currently are. The issue we should not forget is that the true core of the press is a lot larger that most of us realise and most of them work hard, they keep ethics high and get published. Some break our hearts, dent our faith and crush our strength with the facts they report. So the report gives us another view. Can we actually ignore it all? Is that not wrong to those who kept the banner of Journalism high? Legislation would ensure THEIR good handling.

The issue that the PM fairly raises is that legislation would be more complicated and create a vehicle for politicians in the future to impose regulation and obligations on the press. I would like to add to that, that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Even if I ignored the fear he voices on limiting freedom of the press down the road there is an actual impasse. We would all feel divided between the two sides. They are both fair sides.

What stopped me from hailing the move towards legislation is what i had been reading lately involving several economic issues. Could legislation be used as a shelter for economic manipulation? How long until these matters get intertwined and there is such lack of legal clarity that a hedge fund gets ‘misquoted’ and the blame is pushed unto the press with all the, messages of ‘oops’ and reference to an honest miscommunication.

This comes from the NY times 9th July 2012 “Bank Scandal Turns Spotlight to Regulators”

That belief, some regulators say, stemmed from a “miscommunication,” rather than instructions from Mr Tucker. The bank also never explicitly told regulators that it was reporting false interest rates that amounted to manipulation, according to regulatory documents.

So, if this was taken as truth, then we see here an example how media regulation would just complicate matter. What if ‘them’ is a financial reporter, or just anyone in the press picking up a nice piece of news? For that matter, if I got a $1 for every mention of miscommunication I heard over the last 20 years, and if that rule only applied to people who were senior manager of higher then I would buy an island like Guernsey (or the Falkland’s with an additional free Frigate).

From those sides, and views I would see that the PM (alas) has a point. On his side is also Adrian Jeakings, president of the UK Newspaper society. He too believes that the industry is capable of policing the press. That part I wish to oppose. You see, they will play nice, they will be quiet and humble and so on, but how long until the 1,000,000 pound fine will be diminished, because it will only hurt more then it will do good? How long until some of them will transgress to the point that they should be criminally charged? At that point a QC will come into the court mentioning ‘honest mistake’, ‘my client is truly sorry and remorseful’ and so on.
This prospect moves me straight back into Camp Leveson (to coin a phrase). There is no doubt. Some of us will go one way, some the other way. No matter how we feel, we are not indifferent.

Perhaps reading the Royal charter when released will help us to clear our heads and accept that charter, or push us into demanding legislation. I do know that we have not seen the end of this any day soon.