Tag Archives: Pricewaterhouse Coopers

Three privacies walked into a bar

It is not merely the beginning of a bad joke; it has become a distasteful one. Now, for the most I have never really been against social media like Facebook, as it was free and nothing comes for free. Yet in this, I have always advocated and expected certain levels of decency. The Guardian revealed two days ago that large levels of decency have been trampled on to a much larger degree than ever contemplated, and the people remain silent. The people are so uppity uppity on possible transgressions by governments seeking criminals and terrorists, yet they will allow for any transgression towards greed and exploitation, how can we accept any of it?

  1. Show us your tits

It is an old expression, and I heard it first somewhere in the early 80’s. It broadly represents: ‘What have you got to offer?‘ Mostly used by people with absolutely no adherence to either diplomacy or good manners (unless a guy makes the joke to a good male friend). It is the first part in the stage that the Guardian offers in an article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/19/facebook-shared-user-data-private-messages-netflix-spotify-amazon-microsoft-sony) where we see not merely ‘bending’ the rules; it is the breaking of basic rights towards privacy that is now out in the open. Even as we accept to the smaller degree: “making user data available through loopholes to companies including Amazon, Microsoft and Sony“, can we even contemplate the impact that we would have to face through: “Facebook gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read and even delete users’ private messages“, the fact that these two were allowed to ‘delete’ messages is crossing a line the width of the grand canyon and the fact that those fruits and nuts on Capitol Hill (aka Senators and Congressmen) are clueless in their interviews, showing one stupidity tainted example after another and questions like ‘giving away rights to delete private messages‘ remained largely undisclosed shows just how useless the elected officials have become towards the larger fields of technology.

  1. Merely the tip, or can I shove my whole penis in there?

A small reference to the comedian Jimmy Carr, who once stated: “I can’t get a word in there, let alone my cock“, and that setting gives us the New York Times view of: “Facebook allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages” (at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html#click=https://t.co/p565d1TX5L). As we contemplate: “Acknowledging that it had breached users’ trust, Facebook insisted that it had instituted stricter privacy protections long ago. Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive, assured lawmakers in April that people “have complete control” over everything they share on Facebook“, we see a much larger field opening up. We can think on one side that Mark Zuckerberg had become clueless on what is going on, or he remains intentionally silent on what he believes are personal rights of privacy, the mere realisation that Facebook acknowledges that not one user on Facebook has any rights to privacy is at the core of this stage. It goes further with: “the deals described in the documents benefited more than 150 companies — most of them tech businesses, including online retailers and entertainment sites, but also automakers and media organizations. Their applications sought the data of hundreds of millions of people a month, the records show. The deals, the oldest of which date to 2010, were all active in 2017. Some were still in effect this year” there is a clear transgression going on, and it is merely speculative on my side when we considered the impact of Bing and Microsoft. They have become so afraid of what Google has become that they are willing to stage new settings of alliances against whatever fictive war they face, the innovations that Google has brought and the innovations that Chinese player Huawei is bringing is scaring these large players beyond belief. If they cannot get up to their imaginative version what it means to be ‘on par’ they feel that they will be considered as derelict and considered as merely trivial in the 5G field. That is a much larger realisation and people need to be aware that as they contemplate of what it means to be a major player in the 5G field, the mere perception that they are not that, that they have lost the trust of the people is a much larger hurdle.

The NY Times shows that part in their article with: “Mr. Zuckerberg was determined to weave Facebook’s services into other sites and platforms, believing it would stave off obsolescence and insulate Facebook from competition. Every corporate partner that integrated Facebook data into its online products helped drive the platform’s expansion, bringing in new users, spurring them to spend more time on Facebook and driving up advertising revenue. At the same time, Facebook got critical data back from its partners“. We could contemplate that this is optionally the Ponzi version of a data scheme, but it is as I personally see it more sinister than that. You see, the lower levels would never advance to a higher level and the data would merely flow up to the tip of the pyramid, leaving the rest as mere exploitable facilitators in all this.

  1. Supply Filofax’s to the Russians, it is very organised crime

There is one additional part in all this that could be the beginning of the end for Facebook, as the NY Times gives us: “Facebook, in turn, used contact lists from the partners, including Amazon, Yahoo and the Chinese company Huawei — which has been flagged as a security threat by American intelligence officials — to gain deeper insight into people’s relationships and suggest more connections, the records show“, we are introduced to a much larger issue. Not only has the US been unable to prove the lie (read: non-truth) that Huawei is a National Security danger. We see the makings of the fact that American Corporation (read: Facebook) has been handing over the data voluntarily. As a business solution, Huawei had been able to see where the interactions were the largest and also predict where hardware and software would make it a much better regarded update for consumers, the fact that this data became available gives the first rise (after shown levels of non-comprehension) that technology firms are replacing politicians, politics and policy making them useless as these technology firms have been setting the beat of who gets what data and at which price, yet the US government is not allowed access, not when it can be sold at $14.99 per kilobyte of raw data.

This remains an evolving field and it is not until we get to the part “Apple devices also had access to the contact numbers and calendar entries of people who had changed their account settings to disable all sharing, the records show. Apple officials said they were not aware that Facebook had granted its devices any special access. They added that any shared data remained on the devices and was not available to anyone other than the users“, so not only does the new iPad pro bend under the smallest pressure, which Apple claims is normal (something the consumer was not informed about), we see that the ignorance of their own technology is now a much larger issue all over the playing field. the mere fact that disabled sharing of data still allowed for sharing is an architectural failure of much larger proportions than ever contemplated. In all this data sharing in Huawei devices remains unproven and in all this it seems that Google is not the black sheep some proclaim it is, all whilst Facebook is showing to be without ethics, without regards and without morals, so at what point will we relabel Facebook to Faecesbook?

So as the article ends with: “How closely Facebook monitored its data partners is uncertain. Most of Facebook’s partners declined to discuss what kind of reviews or audits Facebook subjected them to. Two former Facebook partners, whose deals with the social network dated to 2010, said they could find no evidence that Facebook had ever audited them. One was BlackBerry. The other was Yandex” gives a much larger rise to the lack of privacy that up to two billion users have not had for the longest of times. We could argue that it is in the interest of Google, to fix Google+ and allow people to port away from Facebook. When we look at the two players, it seems that Google+ is not nearly as dangerous as Facebook is more and more showing to be. Even as we are considering that Washington DC is suing Facebook, the realisation we get from: “Washington DC has sued Facebook for allowing the political consultancy Cambridge Analytica to gain access to the personal data of tens of millions of the site’s users without their permission“, when we set it against the stage that the guardian, the Times and the New York Times have shown the people. We merely have to print the log of all data shared and number all instances of data transgression will optionally show Facebook to be the most reckless and unethical corporation in the history of technology, that is quite the achievement, and it works for Microsoft as they might proclaim themselves to be saints in a tar pit.

When we consider the quote: “According to a letter that Facebook sent this fall to Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat, PricewaterhouseCoopers reviewed at least some of Facebook’s data partnerships“, we see a massive failure by Facebook to police and protect the data of others, and as we already know, those who have the latest mobile phone, we need to realise that this is no longer a mobile phone, the latest phones and the ones for 5G are no longer merely mobile phones, they have become personal data servers and as we are seeing the impact where Facebook has made most of all that data shareable, with people you never agreed on having access, in how much anger will you be from January 1st 2019 and onwards? For me it works out nicely, it merely increases the value of my new IP, which is currently on the rise to a much larger degree than even I contemplated. 2019 might be finally be the year where my life turns largely to the better and at present I feel a lot safer handing that IP to Huawei than to anyone else, that is one reality that Washington DC has shown to the largest of degrees (Mountain View remains a strong contender for now).

The only part in all this is why large parts of all this was not shown clearly in the senate hearing of September 2018. Just contemplate this weekend, what else did that so called Senate hearing not figure out, and how unsafe would you like your personal data end up being in 2019?

 

Leave a comment

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

An audited symphony in Green

twitterfeed_0101aThis all started yesterday when the honourable Mark George QC sent a tweet (see picture), which was followed by my answer, and that one was given because I was feeling frisky. When you are done killing people in Constantinople as Ezio Auditore, I relied on Twitter to see some of the news messages on the air. His was one of the first ones I saw.

Was he wrong, was I? At that point it did not matter, the image that is given was based on three different matters and they could very well be valid, so I decided to dig today and see what is exactly going on. The first thing I am noticing is how much emotions are going all over the place, it is all about the wealthy getting bashed. Now, this might not be wrong, but what is actually happening? First was the Week, who referred to an article in the Guardian, so I am looking at that one (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/21/sir-philip-green-bhs-mps-pension-schemes). The title is catchy enough ‘Sir Philip Green could face £1bn BHS fine under MPs’ plan‘, yet is this going anywhere? The first quote is “BHS collapsed into administration in April, leading to the loss of 11,000 jobs and leaving a £571m deficit. The regulator has started legal proceedings against Green and Dominic Chappell, the former owners of BHS, in an attempt to fill the deficit. They collected millions of pounds from the retailer“. You see, the issue behind all this goes a little further and of course, the red cloth of the bull became very visible. The Accountant Online (at http://www.theaccountant-online.com/features/comment-bhs-and-the-silence-of-the-auditors-4923573/) gives us the news that the Guardian was unwilling to give us here. When the Accountant gives us “The Accountant magazine professor Prem Sikka painstakingly analyses PwC’s role as auditor of UK failed retailer BHS“, so the same group of less capable reviewers (read: idiots) connected to the entire Tesco disaster are also linked to BHS? Can anyone explain to me why Pricewaterhouse Coopers is still accredited to work anywhere in the UK at present? The additional quote gives us “Recurring losses and negative equity should have encouraged auditors to issue an emphasis of matter type of audit report which might have alerted employees, pension scheme members, pension regulators and others of the possible inability of BHS to correct deficits, but PwC did no such thing“, is that not odd? The fact that everyone is in emotional state, including the one person that should feel the strike of shame too. You see the right honourable Frank Field, Labour MP for Birkenhead and Chairman of the Work and Pensions Select Committee makes no mention of the PwC side either. I find that very odd, the fact that such large companies do not get red flagged by the auditor should actually have been higher on his list than Philip Green was. So Frankie’s response in the Guardian on £1000 million instead of £350 million is (as I personally see it) merely a load of rubbish, something to set at ease the engine of anger from the 11,000 people without a job, because if he had actually cared PwC would have been on his list in that interview in massive 350 feet letters, sending shock-waves through that decrepit organisation of abacus users.

This is not nearly the end of it. When we look at the Guardian in November, We see (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/02/philip-green-may-be-forced-to-pay-money-into-bhs-pension-scheme) that Graham Ruddick and Kevin Rawlinson have more to say on the matter (at an earlier stage) as we see ‘Pensions Regulator begins legal proceedings against Sir Philip Green‘, still the PwC stays unmentioned. Is that not weird? When I see ‘regulator‘ and ‘legal proceedings‘ I see, in my mind, in equal measure the need to look at the books and at that point the auditors. You see a £571 million deficit should not have been unnoticed, more interestingly anything over £100 million should have instantly called for a pension check, the fact that the Accountant online gives us “Page 1 of BHS Limited 2011 accounts stated that “The directors believe that preparing the financial statements on the going concern basis is appropriate due to the continued financial support of the Company’s ultimate parent company Taveta Investments Limited”. This statement is repeated on page 1 of the 2012 and 2013 accounts. Page 1 of the 2014 accounts stated that “during the year, the company was a wholly owned subsidiary of Taveta Investments Limited“, this should have been more than one moment where the senior abacus users at PwC should have been ringing the bells of red flags, the quote “BHS and its controllers had persistently failed to eradicate pension scheme deficit. In the light of that why did PwC have confidence in management assertions that it would provide financial support to ensure that BHS would remain a going concern“, shows what I personally believe to be a massive level of negligence, one that at this point is missing from the Guardian and several other news media. Can anyone explain how PwC seems to be receiving this level of non-accountability? Is this the price of hiring cheap graduates in places where seniors need to work? So as we see the massive amounts of deficits in place, we see that “since 2009, PwC collected £2.282 million in audit fees and £9.04 million in consultancy fees from Taveta Investments Limited, which included BHS“, which gives me the fact that in total (including Tesco), PwC received £25 million for what I personally regard to be overly negligent, that whilst I over my life for being capable and overly service oriented have never received anywhere near 0.3% of that amount annually pre taxation. So we can state that whilst the emotional and feigned state of anger by Frank Field sounds nice, but it is merely charades and the man should remain quiet until he actually achieves anything in regards to the pension schemes.

Now let’s get back to the original part, because there is a lot more than PwC in this matter. The quote “As part of any deal, it is understood that Green wants the regulator to ensure that Chappell pays into the pension scheme as well. The billionaire tycoon believes he was misled by Chappell about his track record in business and the money that Retail Acquisitions was paid by BHS“, which can easily be rectified, because if this was done properly there would have been records, like mail messages with attachments (resume amongst others), there would have been reference checks with phone numbers and annual statements showing the track record of Dominic Chappell, who according to some is seen as a former racing driver lacking 100% of retail experience. I cannot vouch for that, yet simple investigation should be able to set that one straight in mere minutes. If Philip Green cannot show any mail messages with evidence, my message to him would be “If it isn’t written down, it does not exist“, one of the oldest golden rules in administration, I reckon a billionaire should know small things like that. In this there is a third side of the problem. This side comes in the form of Lesley Titcomb, who is the current Chief Executive and former COO of The Pensions Regulator (TPR), in the shape that “it was yet to receive “sufficiently credible and comprehensive offer” to bail out the BHS pension scheme, which has more than 20,000 members, despite Green pledging to fix the problems facing it“, she too remains mindlessly numb on any mention of PwC. A pension hole this big should have raised questions years ago. They all remain silent on the auditor which gives pause as to why the hell that firm is:

1: Allowed to be in business in the first place; and

2: Able to cash in on 25 million (including Tesco).

We see that continuation in “The regulator said that after a “complex investigation” and months of talks with Green about a rescue deal for the pension scheme it was sending warning notices to the billionaire tycoon, Chappell and their companies“, the auditor that facilitated for all this remains out of sight, out of mind and out of mention in all this. I have a massive problem with that part, especially as the Guardian has stated more than once to be such an ‘investigative entity‘.

In all this we now see the final part leading to the wise tweet that the honourable Mark George QC made and it makes him a lot more honourable than anything that the UK Labour party has to offer. In my view, I questioned whether the £580 had been a valid destination. The Guardian quote gives “Green controlled BHS between 2000 and 2015, during which time his family and other shareholders collected more than £580m“, so he did not get all the cash, so there is the smallest of discrepancies here on the statement of the Honourable Mark George QC, yet he only had 144 characters to make it. I would want to see 15 annual statements of all the payments towards the Green family and shareholders. Because in that regard, a firm that had a pension scheme in deficit for 11 years and negative equity for at least 7 years, how would it have been possible for shareholders to get anything at all, in addition, how much did Philip Green actually receive as payments from the BHS side of his businesses?

There is a growing list of concerns, concerns that should also be used against PwC, the TPR as well as HM Revenue & Customs. I think that it is safe to say that the days of ‘Walk softly and carry a beagle‘ (Charlie Brown) are over and we need to look at ‘Shout loudly and carry a machine gun with the safety off‘ (Rambo) as an actual deterrent for the non-actions of all these players. In addition, I think we need to put Lord Grabiner in the spotlight who was a former Chairman of both Taveta companies. You see, what Frankie Fields did carefully avoid to mention is that Lord Grabiner is linked to the Arcadia group, also owned by Taveta Investments, as is his family member Ian Grabiner, in all this Baron Grabiner might be seen as an academic administrator, but there is nothing academic about this half a billion pound mess and with Labour members remaining very silent on their peers, it seems that the 1 billion pound levy threat is merely a hollow action giving the implied value of £0 towards Frank Fields and his valued point of view, especially when we look at a non-actioned and non-mentioned gap of 11. One person (@the_MourningSun) gave me the answer to my tweet that this was down to a difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. I think both have failed miserably for well over half a decade when the larger players get to play the game the way that the BHS was played. In the end, it will be for a court to decide whether Philip Green broke any laws or failed anyone he cares for (read: implied view he only cares for himself). What is overly clear is that too many parties are leaving the auditors in the shadows, away from the peering and prying eyes of the public, which is a massive failure on every level.

So as you think that the TPR is currently on the ball, you all better take notice of the Guardian quote “By the standard measure used by the PPF, 4,272 defined benefit schemes are in deficit and the size of the black hole is £195bn“, so as we see that part, I wonder when we get a list of those 4000+ schemes, who is auditing them. I wonder when we look at 2 pie charts, one based on the deficit amount against the auditors involved, and one based on the number of schemes against the auditors involved. I wonder which auditor will end up being the most prominent one. Would you like to hazard a guess?

Let’s see if we can revisit this part somewhere this quarter and see how many spins the media and Lesley Titcomb (Executive Officer TPR) will end up doing.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

The Repetitive Misrepresentation

This was the first though in my mind, when I was confronted with ‘Leaving EU ‘could cause catastrophic worker shortages’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/leaving-eu-could-cause-catastrophic-worker-shortages). As I see it, the first issue I would like to address is ‘Which Think-tank?‘ That issue is seen not just there. We see this overwhelming reports of what I regard to be blatant misrepresentation in many places. I personally just tend to read the Online Guardian first because in many regards they are really good.

My issue is with Social Market Foundation think-tank. You see, how on earth did they get to that number? What constitutes their evidence for the quote “the 1.6 million EU workers in the UK“, perhaps it is the 1.5 million illegal immigrants and out of millions perhaps 100,000 actual issues? You see, we do not get the actual facts, because other data (incorrect data) is thrown in-between. It gets even worse when the Guardian starts quoting Pricewaterhouse Coopers with “According to analysis, by accountancy firm PwC, 950,000 jobs could be lost as a result of leaving the EU“.

It gets even worse when Seema Malhotra stops being quiet. Now, let’s be clear, I have no issue with politicians who talk, even if they are in the opposition. I would just prefer them to be distinct, correct and precise. The quote “Seema Malhotra, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, highlighted the 240,000 EU workers in the UK public sector and argued Brexit could be “catastrophic” for the NHS and other public services“, is an issue on many levels, most of them equally disastrous to say the least.

Almost lastly there is Sir Richard Leese, who treats us to: “pulling out of the EU would be a “hammer blow for the public sector” and cause “chronic staff shortages, damaging the services that British people depend on” Really? Which public sectors? Which services?

Now lastly we have Adam Hawkins, director at Adecco. He co-authored the Social Market Foundation report and gives us: “Under a scenario where free movement of labour no longer applies and EU workers were subjected to the same visa requirements that are currently in place for non-EEA workers, 88% of EU workers currently working in the UK would fail to qualify”. To Adam I would prefer to quote: “73.6% Of All Statistics Are Made Up“, which we get from (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/736-of-all-statistics-are-made-up-2010-2), an article by Mark Suster. I personally thought it was only 32.544%, but I know I could have been wrong in this instance. In the article we get “the quote most attributed to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Benjamin Disraeli, “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.” The quote is meant to highlight the deceiving but persuasive power of numbers“, which is at the core of the matter, which is of course beside the fact that 10+ years at SPSS showed me a thing or two regarding papers that have been broomed under the closest rug as soon as possible. The quote in the Business Insider gives you “I got the analyst who wrote one of the reports on the phone and asked how he got his projections.  He must have been about 24.  He said, literally, I sh*t you not, “well, my report was due and I didn’t have much time.  My boss told me to look at the growth rate average over the past 3 years an increase it by 2% because mobile penetration is increasing.”  There you go.  As scientific as that“, this was at the core of the issue I had with PwC earlier. The final Gem the Business Insider offered was “They took the data from the analysts.  So did the super bright consultants at McKinsey, Bain and BCG.  We all took that data as the basis for our reports. Then the data got amplified. The bankers and consultants weren’t paid to do too much primary research.  So they took 3 reports, read them, put them into their own spreadsheet, made fancier graphs, had professional PowerPoint departments make killer pages and then at the bottom of the graph they typed, “Research Company Data and Consulting Company Analysis” (fill in brand names) or some derivative. But you couldn’t just publish exactly what Gartner Group had said so these reports ended up slightly amplified in message. Even more so with journalists.  I’m not picking on them.  They were as hoodwinked as everybody was.  They got the data feed either from the research company or from the investment bank“. This all from an article in The Business Insider from February 18th 2010! (Yes, more than 6 years ago).

There we have the initial goods, now we need to take a step back.

You see, in my article ‘Is the truth out there?‘ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/03/21/is-the-truth-out-there/), I respond to the initial CBI report, where I saw a decent amount of gaps. Gaps that require the raw data to confirm or deny. Yet, as we all know, that is a part we do not get access to. Still, there was enough ammunition to counter certain statements, which I did. So when we get the little blue snippet on the left by the Guardian in so called ‘support’ we see that one part is the juicy bone that is a figment of illusionary support, yes it was not a helpful snippet at all.

The next part is the article as a whole by Rowena Mason. As she surfs from emotional statement to emotional statement, we see an article that is pretty much devoid from quality data, as such the quotes become nothing more than hollow phrases, no matter how distinguished the people are (or in this case, the one person Sir Richard Leese is). In this case in view of his deeds he should be offered another view, yet in opposition as a former Math teacher he should know better. His statement might not be wrong (might being the operative word), without clear data and clear supporting evidence the statement is like most hollow. This part intersects with the voiced quote Seema Malhotra made (the one person who was better off remaining silent). So why am I stating this?

Where is my justification?

Let me show that part right now. You see, in her quote she linked 240,000 EU workers and the NHS. A blatant misrepresentation to say the least. When we look back to the article I wrote titled ‘The News shows its limit of English‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/22/the-news-shows-its-limit-of-english/), almost a year ago. I looked at a similar statement. In there, based on CLEAR immigration documentation as stated in Appendix I and J (both documents are in my article at the end). Documents on the GOV.UK site. We see that “Pay requirements which the Secretary of State intends to apply to applications for indefinite leave to remain from Tier 2 (General) and Tier 2 (Sportspersons) migrants made on or after 6 April 2016” has clear parameters and as such, no NHS worker (Nurse or Doctor) would be at risk. We acknowledge that the NHS is more than that and in that case we see that section 245HF of that document shows that the bulk of tier 2 workers are all covered in that case. So we see the intentional creation of chaos, whilst there is none at all. It is of course very possible that the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury might be non-competent, and as such the question becomes whether she should have accepted her present position or would have been better of working in a hair salon (OK, that’s me just being generically mean).

All this feeds back to the article of Rowena. The collection of emotional responses in perhaps ‘feigned support’ of the Bremain team has only shown that the stated support elements are non-issues, or too generic to have any actual value. In addition, as we consider the immigration documentation, especially in light of appendix J, which has over 125 pages of definitions of these jobs, with on page 4 an essential element: “In all cases, the pay must be compliant with National Minimum Wage regulations“, which should not be an element at all. So when we consider the massive list of options and people that have options to get work permits, can we agree that the statement by Adam Hawkins, director at Adecco, with his “88% of EU workers currently working in the UK would fail to qualify” has been blown out of the water with clarity and conviction?

All elements that have been clearly known from before June 2015, all that information easily available. This leaves us with an article that has lost most of its value by trying to appeal to mere emotion and give false paths to the people who are uninformed. Where is the value in that?

I have been in the Brexit field for a long time, my sway to the neutral field was not easy, it was not done by misinformation. It was done by clear information through Mark Carney, governor of the bank of England. I have not landed in the Bremain field however, he did achieve that I am not as convinced of Brexit as I was. The remaining elements are not within the UK, they are with the elements outside of the UK, mainly the irresponsible spending of the other treasurers as well as the action of ECB Chief Mario Draghi, actions that I personally (as a non-economist) regard to be short-sighted. That part is equally important, you see what I consider to be a bad idea might not be a bad idea in the eyes of an established economist. I do not believe that I have all the knowledge, all the values and insights, I always question mine. You should question yours if you will ever make an informed decision regarding Brexit.

This gets us to the last part in all this.

The article that involves Marky Mark of the British coin. The article ‘Mark Carney denies Brexit bias and Goldman Sachs influence in heated exchanges with MPs‘ (at http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/newswire/mark-carney-denies-brexit-bias-goldman-influence-heated-exchanges-mps/), his response was ‘Wow’ and so is mine. I went over the Lords statement and there was nothing out of place here. I might even commend him on remaining slightly conservative in the risk as he mentioned them. The quote in this article is ““Can I just give you the opportunity to refute any suggestion that Goldman Sachs may have put pressure on you?” Baker asked during the testimony, which lasted more than two hours and was dominated by Brexit“. Here we see Steve Baker, co-chairman of the Conservatives for Britain group. A man with a personal agenda, which is not the most reliable accusing voice in all this. From what I have seen and read over the last year, I have a lot more faith in the information that the Governor of the Bank of England brings us, than the opposing voice of Steve Baker. In this I stand with BT Group Plc Chairman Michael Rake who stated in a Bloomberg article (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-26/-no-doubt-leaving-eu-would-hurt-u-k-economy-bt-chairman-says) “it was “deeply depressing” that a Conservative lawmaker, Steve Baker, asked Bank of England Governor Mark Carney this week in Parliament whether his former employer, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., had put pressure on him to warn of the risks of leaving the EU. “Trying to undermine reputable individuals, reputable institutions, that are simply trying to get the facts about the economy across to the British people in a critical referendum, a critical moment in time, is disappointing””. I personally believe to be worse, in this Steve Baker moved from being a possible political player on the conservative field into a place where he can be ridiculed and soon to be regarded as a mere memory in the political arena. I have opposed the view of Mark Carney more than once, but always as a question, always in regards to choices, never as any indication that the former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the current Governor of the Bank of England was in the pocket of Goldman Sachs. His statement and the cautiousness of the statement in the House of Lords is clear indication that he is not in the Goldman Sachs pocket.

Repetitive misrepresentation by too many players is muddying the water of those trying to make an informed decision and as such the voters are likely to get less and less information over the next three weeks. In this regard the press isn’t helping too much either.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Where is Mr Burden?

So there is this article in the Guardian, where the title is the call to action (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/17/connecting-everyone-to-internet-global-economy-poverty), the headline gives us “Connecting everyone to internet ‘would add $6.7tn to global economy’”, this is a statement that might hold water, you see those people might need hardware (a router at the very least), there are optional needs for hardware and getting the data streamed for all these surfers required many coins too, so I would state that there is a truth in that.

What becomes an issue is “Report estimates getting whole world online would lift 500m people out of poverty over next five years“, this woke me up, because raising people out of poverty is a good thing. Yet in all this, how are these people getting paid? So that is where the alarm bells start ringing. The quote “The report, titled Connecting the world: Ten mechanisms for global inclusion, was prepared for Facebook by PwC’s strategy consultants Strategy&“, which is an issue, especially when PwC is part of that equation, something from Tesco anyone?

More than nine-tenths of the world’s population live in places where the infrastructure exists to get them online, but the majority of them cannot afford to do so” is the quote that follows and as such, I can agree with that, although there are plenty of places like all over India where connectivity is an issue, beside the affordability issue. Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tibet, Siberia that list is renowned and not that short. So what gives?

Here the article suddenly becomes a little murky. You see, Facebook is favouring its approach “the Internet.org project, which aims to partner with carriers in developing nations to give low-cost internet access“, which has some critique. The additional quote “Jonathan Tate, technology consulting leader at PwC, argues that Facebook’s approach is worth it in the long term. While zero rating provides access to a slimmer version the internet than the full web, he says it’s a crucial stepping stone to full access. “The important thing here is to get things moving,” he added“, I think that this might sound real, but it does not sound true. The following quote “Facebook’s motivation for paying for Internet.org is partially explained by PwC’s estimates of where the benefits of new access accrue. While most of the economic benefits of new internet access come to those freshly online, the consultancy estimates that content providers such as Facebook stand to gain a $200bn opportunity over the next five years” has the issues within the text especially between the words. You see, I personally believe that this is not about connecting, it is about connectivity, more important, the fact on how these groups could soon be identified. Those who have and those who have not. This is where the issue forms.

Those not online will not lost their poverty status other that administrative. I feel that this is about classification, this is about finding out where the non-connected live. Once the non-connected are properly categorised, it will be much easier to dismiss certain groups. We are already seeing it in our daily lives all over the place. You are either a benefit or you are a burden. That was a reality and a valid form of identification years ago, but as the internet is mapped, we see the everlasting need for growing data. Data can be sold, that is why there is such a need to get everyone connected. That data is worth a lot to places like Facebook. The initial claim still remains ‘raising 500 million people out of poverty‘ How, is my question and the important fact that Alex Hern might rely on is not explained at all.

As I see it, the possible addition of $6.7T is all about data selling and marketing, so far, not too much visibility on poverty and how to stop that, or better stated, how this implementation will get the really poor their impact. So how about that poverty?

It’s all over the world, so how will a solution be found for those not being able to connect to a Sweet Home internet spot. It seems to me that many players are all about data selling to make their numbers, which is a dangerous approach, especially for those getting exploited, because after 6 months, they might suddenly no longer be interesting to have online, what happens then? That is the part that requires special attention, especially as I believe that internet providers have largely gone into the mode ‘Are you a Benefit or a Burden?‘ We better pace to not be a burden, because this world is less and less appealing, mainly because governments couldn’t keep their budgets in check and others ended up paying for the initial claims made by those no longer here.

That makes 100% internet coverage an additional issue in regards of this case, as it is an illusionary number, 100% coverage can in these kind of cases never be maintained, even if it is technologically possible, in the end there are other costs involved, also on the user end, which gets me to the users!

You see, for most the equation is slightly too simple. You are either a user, or you are getting used. This applies especially to big business, giving weight to the Benefit/Burden part. Consumers are for the most a benefit, yet in all this, what kind of consumers? Consumers of banks and financial institutions? Consumer of marketable goods? There are so many options here, but for a large part, the one group that (still) falls outside of the scope is the poverty group.

You see Alex, in your column, in the paragraph on how expensive the internet is for some, the quote “For 66% of the world, a 500MB data plan costs more than 5% of their monthly income, the level the report’s authors describe as “unaffordable”“, yet for many, the 5% is usually connected to other things too and in many places 5% of a minimum income gets you plenty of gigabytes. I checked in the Netherlands (not cheap but affordable), Sweden (5 GB affordable for about $15), Germany, UK (unlimited for a mere $8), Australia (where I can get near 1TB on a minimum wage), the benefits of a few languages gets you a lot of information. Basically the previous statement is blown out of the water, or perhaps, these countries are within the 34%?

This article reeks as I see it, you see, when you are in poverty other things matter, the internet will not get those people out of poverty, plain and simple. I would really like to dig into that report. I wonder how it holds up to my scrutiny. The simplest of reasons is that if it was a solution, the US would have done it to get there massive poverty line down, Europe would have seriously done something some time ago. No, I regard this as some PwC approach to more exploitation. The fact that this gets the limelight and the connected acts by PwC regarded Tesco are kept silent by the press at large is still a massive issue and the Guardian is equally guilty in that regard.

The basic statement “Improvement of existing technology, or even simply installing existing technology in developing nations, will suffice to bring about much of this cost reduction” is added fuel to the fire. You see, that is a truth, but who has the cash to invest in that? You see, that still requires a device for people to connect to that infrastructure. The final statement takes the cake “But new technology will still be needed to achieve total connectivity. The reports’ authors estimate that the last 500 million people to get online won’t be able to rely on piecemeal improvements“, we can argue the validity here, but are those the same people who will be lifted out of poverty?

You see, this article shakes on all sides, I wonder whether this was about 500 million out of poverty (which I doubt would ever happen), or was this a simple deluded piece regarding connectivity? Well, to give Alex Hern a fair shake, we need to take a look at that report. Look, here it is: http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/global/home/press/displays/global-internet-inclusion.

So, it is not initially about connectivity is it?

So let’s take a look at some of these parts

In the first:

Bringing the whole world online would create huge benefits for developing countries and for businesses over the coming five years, including:

  • Social and economic improvement for over 4 billion people
  • An additional global economic output of US$6.7 trillion
  • A $400 billion growth opportunity for telecom operators
  • A $200 billion opportunity for content providers

 

  1. An additional global economic output of US$6.7 trillion (based on what is that)
    2. A $400 billion growth opportunity for telecom operators
    0. A $200 billion opportunity for content providers

Why this numbering? Yes, the claim of that multi trillion dollar output sounds nice, but how is that acquired? PwC has had its issues with forecasting, yet in all this how could this be true. Well, it can be, you see most of us (including me) would think that this was about developing the option to exploit those in developing countries. I state here and now that this is unlikely to add to such an amount. The second part is the 400 billion for telecom operators. Yes, that part might be true, yet in all that, who pays for this? You see a telecom operator is very willing to invest 400 billion, providing they get 600 billion out of all of this. So who pays for that part? Even more important is the issue that was initially reported. How does that push people OUT of poverty? And now we get to point zero, the content providers, remember what I wrote? Here we see the classification, it becomes about the issue of dividing the population into Benefits and Burdens. So why is that important?

Look at the next part:

Replacing current 2G networks with 3G or 4GLTE could bring a 60-70% reduction in the cost per MB to serve developing markets, making it profitable for operators to provide internet services, and opening up the internet to over 2bn people. Who pays for that hardware? What are the costs of those transmitters and upgrade those local providers? In all that, the people involved, the consumers become benefit for those who can afford it, a burden if they cannot. There is another view (at http://qz.com/684388/broadband-service-tends-to-stop-at-the-poverty-line-in-the-us/), there are a few sides that sound good and believable. The one part that is in common with the view PwC shows us is “provide affordable communications to low-income households“, yet here we see two other parts:

  1. High-bandwidth applications overwhelm mobile data plans and slow connections. This limits or even cuts off many families from e-commerce, banking, health care, and services.
  2. Broadband for rural residents, it’s a real lifeline. In fact, that’s the name of the federal program designed to provide affordable communications to low-income households.

The second part might seem correct and positive, but behind this is another form of reasoning. You see, Telecom providers require income, for that they provide bandwidth. What is a clear need for most parties is the collection of data, classification as well as profit. The data must grow! (That is my personal view) The government will need in addition a more complete shift towards the digital field, not just in America, this is a near global need. Only when the shift to digital is complete the last pesky barricade will fall away. A real first move to a total digital world. In all this there is still no real evidence that poverty will fall away. Here is the first part where PwC and Alex Hern have different settings. PwC stated in the paper “above absolute poverty levels“, One definition is ‘the minimal requirements necessary to afford minimal standards of food, clothing, health care and shelter‘, another version gives us ‘absolute poverty is used as a synonym for extreme poverty, meaning the lack of enough resources to have stable basic life necessities‘, this makes the entire exercise another matter entirely.

Providing content through a series of local high speed networks, would make it affordable for a further 300m people. What kind of content? Subscribable content? At what cost? And how does access to digital content reduce its cost? How does this provision make someone less pover? Well we can speculate that making a person dependant on digital access and then making it available to all, that person is less pover. So basically, we give a few person one extra service, a basic necessity. Now, they no longer have 1 out of 6 basic needs, now they suddenly have 2 out of 7 basic needs. So their index went from 16% (absolute poverty) to 28.5% (poor), a mere implementation of ‘How to lie with statistics’. For the people they are still in deep poverty in real life, but according to the statistics not that much.

Offline distribution of content, including through national and regional data exchanges would improve access and affordability for a further 170m people”. Here the issue is ‘data exchanges’, the exchange of data happens in our daily life, but is this that same level, or is this a conglomerate push to have access to personal data? This is speculation, but let’s face it, nothing is free, that is a given. So what levels of data exchange is linked to all this?

Governments offering content focused on education, social services or business opportunities could create an incentive for a further 200m to go online”. This is clean cut, this is what governments would love, but in all this (especially in the USA), we see a rural absence of connectivity, a lack of services provided for, which means local government presence, which costs money. In this day of cut backs (near global) getting connected means that help goes through wiki pages, through online forms and through automated parsing of forms. This has massive drawbacks on many levels, but that is not what this article is about.

Brand or subscriber subsidized access, for example learning centers, could bring another 500 million online globally”. This reads in more than one way, it could be seen a subscribed subsidised brand access, which could go in many ways, not all of them in a positive way. Yet, let’s not focus on such sides or on ‘wording’ to that extent at least for now.

Another quote can be seen in two ways, as I saw it Alex took it one way. The quote “This leaves 4.1 billion people disconnected from a modern economy that would benefit by over US$6 trillion with their participation“, can also be seen as ‘the modern economy would benefit by connecting the 4.1 billion disconnected people. It could enable a maximum of 6 trillion in amassable revenue for those connected‘ Again, partially speculative, but does that not read a lot more reliable than the ‘social’ approach the Guardian took?

Let’s not forget, PwC is all about the numbers and the profit (sometimes overstated), the full report (at http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/reports/connecting-the-world) gives me the last part: “The third is to create more national and international data infrastructure, such as Internet exchange points (IxPs) and data centers“, here we have it, data centres, the one part Alex Hern did not illuminate, as the tech writer he should be all over that, not just because of its need, but because many developing countries lack proper skills, knowledge and lack infrastructure to get it correctly up and running and keep it online. Apart from the massive need for security in such centres, that data could become too widely available too fast, or proper companies will have to step in, at what cost?

So we might accept the title “Connecting everyone to internet ‘would add $6.7tn to global economy’“, yet who will benefit? The developing countries? Me thinks not, it’s a mere continuing imbalance of Benefit and Burden.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Working for a new boss

This morning starts off with an entirely different wave of events. Brexit is turning out to the two teams misrepresenting issues as much as possible, many of these representations are about scaremongering. The NHS is going on and on and on and other views are given. In both cases I agree with some parts, I disagree with loads of it (from my point of view with decent evidence). Yet all this we would have overlooked almost half a dozen articles. The story is only the smallest part of it. What is massively interesting that there is for a chosen few a job available! It is not glamorous, you will be frowned upon, but consider a job that will get you a 7 figure income (after a while), a decent house, possible tropical views a few times a year. In this day and age? Who would not accept that? Perhaps the single ideological man or woman, but that leaves a few million people, all ready to accept a position with the glamorous firm of Mossack Fonseca, a panama based law firm, with services on a global scale. Clients like Russian President Vladimir Putin (allegedly). They operate in tax havens including Switzerland, Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands, and in the British crown dependencies Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. I would love a nice job on Guernsey, a nice house, retirement at some point. I am a Trade Marks attorney, one that would love to get an additional degree in finance if that gives me a good job with Mossack Fonseca, is that not what you saw?

The first article ‘What are the Panama Papers? A guide to the biggest leak in history‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers), assisting the rich and famous store their wealth in tax havens. You see, this is all legal, this is not FIFA screwing its soccer fans over breaking ethical boundaries. This is all thankful to a multitude of short-sighted politicians (or really clever ones depending on your point of view) who enabled options in their tax homes. The article ‘used lawfully to anonymously hold property and bank accounts, these companies were registered in a range of tax havens and this map shows the most popular locations among its clients. The British Virgin Islands held more than 100,000 companies‘, so you would not be breaking the law. You just have to accept that some people pay (a lot) less taxation. After 30 year I have clearly seen and learned that living morally correct will get you a one bedroom apartment in the suburbs, a place you will not be able to pay off before you die. So as morality is not a legal requirement, as all this work is perfectly legal, why not?

This is all coming to light because of a leak, someone (as stated by the Guardian) got a hold of 2.6 terabytes of data. The quote is literally “There are 11.5m documents and 2.6 terabytes of information drawn from Mossack Fonseca’s internal database“, which implies that the facts were discovered through criminal activities. This means that Mossack Fonseca might have a case against those perpetrators. Another interesting quote is “Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so“, so why not become a service provider here?

On the other side there is the quote “In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies“, which is equally valid. Mossack Fonseca stated: “it complies with anti-money-laundering laws and carries out thorough due diligence on all its clients. It says it regrets any misuse of its services and tries actively to prevent it. The firm says it cannot be blamed for failings by intermediaries, who include banks, law firms and accountants“, this gives us another side too. When we consider banks we can consider Barclays (Libor 2012), Marcus Agius, former chairman of Barclays, resigned from his position over it. He’s sitting pretty being amongst others on the board of the BBC. Now, there is no evidence that he was directly involved, but it happened under his nose (so to speak), with a few exceptions most got out with their bonus intact and this was a legal transgression, so why would anyone not want to work for Mossack Fonseca, who is not breaking any laws?

When we consider law firms we should consider the news form the Independent in 2013 where we see: “The Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) knew six years ago that law firms, telecoms giants and insurance were hiring private investigators to break the law and further their commercial interests, the report reveals, yet the agency did next to nothing to disrupt the unlawful trade” (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-other-hacking-scandal-suppressed-report-reveals-that-law-firms-telecoms-giants-and-insurance-8669148.html) and when we see the word ‘accountant’ I think Tesco and Pricewaterhouse Coopers. For example the quote I used “Tesco paid PwC £10.4m in the last financial year – plus another £3.6m for other consultancy work“ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/09/30/thriving-team-tesco/) in the article ‘Thriving Team Tesco?‘, where again the case of wrongdoing should be regarded as more likely than not, so why would we not consider perfectly legal work at Mossack Fonseca?

Let’s not forget that the governments on a global scale are enabling this to get some tax revenue. Consider that the British Virgin Islands have 100,000 companies, without them, how much taxation would have been collected? It is a mere case of need and availability.

For example, a fictive person goes to His Excellency John Duncan and states: “Sir, if you offer us a favourable tax option, the option would be open to bring industry and taxable revenue in access of $1,000,000,000. Would you be willing to consider a low taxation plan?” to this the governor would respond “My dear man, we have no profit tax and no corporation tax!

So how long until the big boys move a few billion to a place like that?

We seem to find time to worry about ethical issues, when the installed governments in Europe have yet to show a mere accountable bone in their bodies for overspending trillions. We seem to be ignoring the obvious. Even if this was illegal, how many banker have gone to prison from 2004 onwards? This is not illegal, this is a mere application of true globalisation. In addition, consider that offshore companies and offshore trusts are in most cases taken out of the view of taxation to begin with, so why not employ this option?

You see, the part that is in the middle of all this is not answered, it is skated around. No one seems to care on HOW the information was gotten at. The quote “2.6 terabytes of information drawn from Mossack Fonseca’s internal database” implies hacking. This does not mean that it could not have been facilitated by internal sources. Such an amount of data does not just easily download, so either someone got access and mirrored a drive, which implies that the server was accessible, what is more likely (read: speculation), is that this is one of the first cloud hacks. To have such a large environment, so global gives the option that data was in the cloud and someone was able to access it. This morning IT Pro had the following quote (at http://www.itpro.co.uk/data-leakage/26293/panama-papers-leaked-through-server-hack-1). “it had opened an investigation after discovering that “unfortunately” it had suffered “an attack on its email server” and that it is taking “all necessary measures to prevent this from happening again“, which could be the case. My issue here is that from a server, getting access to that much data should either be noticed (bandwidth), or it was internal (read: facilitated). When we consider the e-mail data overall, there is nothing that raises flags. Oh yes, there is! That much data with a truckload of attachments gives food for thought. Even as we consider no criminal acts have been undertaken, one would try to secure that much data. Perhaps this was done, but how was so much data gained?

In my view, encrypted UNIX servers would have required massive amounts of time to access and a good IT team always keeps one eye on their servers. Fortune quoted “Mossack Fonseca is calling the 11.5 million leaked documents a “limited” breach” (at http://fortune.com/2016/04/04/panama-papers-law-firm/), which is also likely, yet in all that if that was limited, yet fortune gives us one quote the Guardian would be unlikely to state “It appears that you have had unauthorized access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company and have presented and interpreted them out of context“, now that part will be close to impossible to prove, because the Guardian clearly stated “Using offshore structures is entirely legal

No matter how this plays out, it seems to me that politicians on a global scale will start playing their ‘hypocrisy card’. Which is another laughing matter altogether. I cannot predict how this will officially play out, but they do have a website at http://www.mossfon.com/ and they are also in Trade Marks, so I should see what my options are. For you the reader, especially those with a degree in wealth management. I suggest you send your resume to:

The MF Group
54th Street, Marbella
Panama, Rep. of Panama

You could also go to web page: http://www.mossfon.com/about_service/careers/, if you want to post your resume online!

Let’s not forget, these people have not broken any laws (at present).

Have a fun day and dream of a life without debt in a place you could never have afforded in any other legal way.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Outrage

I am angry and I need your help!

This is not some weak story about a person who is lost, this is a story about a person who is determined. You see, we have all had enough of the press to some extend and now the time is right to give them a little medicine of their own. This all started as I saw this article ‘Matrix director Lilly Wachowski comes out as a transgender woman’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/09/matrix-director-lilly-wachowski-comes-out-as-a-transgender-woman). This seemed not a biggie at first, people make choices, they make them of their own accord and initially I shrugged and thought nothing of it. It is the subtitle that got my blood boiling, almost in a literal way. It stated “she went public after Britain’s Daily Mail ‘threatened public outing’“, now add to this the quote “she referred to the incident as a “threatened public outing against my will”, drawing comparisons to a similar incident involving the paper“. Now add the following parts: “Lucy Meadows, took her life after the Daily Mail published a column by Richard Littlejohn titled “He’s not only in the wrong body … he’s in the wrong job”. Michael Singleton, coroner for Blackburn, Hyndburn and Rossendale, criticised the “sensational and salacious” coverage which he blamed for her death” and “I just wanted – needed – some time to get my head right, to feel comfortable. But apparently I don’t get to decide this“. Well, let’s see if we can change that. I think that change is inevitable, especially if we all unite. You see, from my point of view when ‘pussies’ like that prey on those in vulnerable positions, whilst at the same time ignore transgressions by places like Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) and a few other players, I feel it has become important to change the game that some Journo’s have been playing.

So, let’s turn the tables, especially for those in the UK. Let’s open our offensive on people like Paul Dacre, the Journo’s at the Daily Mail and DMG Media with Viscount Rothermere (for now). Let’s put them in the spotlight!

First up – Viscount Rothermere

Rothermere believes the Daily Mail has been “built on solid ground” and a unique place in the market (Leveson testimony). In my view, as seen in the Guardian as stated by Lilly Wachowsky: “a journalist from Britain’s Daily Mail attempted to coerce her“, so Harold, that unique place, is that coercing people? Why not show some balls and try that on Ian Powell and Gaenor Bagley and coerce some information regarding PwC’s alleged action with Tesco? Perhaps they will give you the goods or that coercing Journo and you will end up with a real scoop, you know, the kind of real ground-breaking stuff towards possible criminal indictment and so on. Or is that a little bit too much of a stretch? Or perhaps there is the ever so slight chance that they will strike back in different ways? Now consider “Rothermere says: “built on a fundamental belief in a trust in journalism as opposed to technology. That’s what makes me proud“, yes, coercing laptops is a little hard, unless you hack them, which might be not all on the up and up legally seen. Finally we get the quote (from the Leveson part) “he is confident the Daily Mail has acted ethically. ‘And I am willing to stand up for us’“, which can be clearly thrown out of the window regarding Lilly Wachowsky. I wonder if we see shrugs, excuses (by stating: ‘It’s on the desk of Paul Dacre’) and other modes of a trans-neglecting mindset.

Second up – Paul Dacre

In December 2015 he proclaimed that he is all about Freedom of Information. He stated: “In the main, I suspect, dislike of FoI is driven by Whitehall’s belief that civil servants should be exempt from public scrutiny. This is in my view counter-productive, and perceived by the public simply as a compulsion to cover backsides“, so is that FoI under any option? Like coercion, blackmail, hacking? Whilst Paul was nice enough to have the quote: “an elitist political class protecting its own interests“, which is like the Journo calling the Politician selfish. That is not the idea we get when their profit is numbers of circulation and now includes Coercion, we can hope it is ONLY coercion (meaning the least offensive way) you get to feed your papers circulation with.

Now let’s get back to 2013 (at http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/03/miliband-daily-mail-inquiry_n_4038824.html), where we see: “The chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust has apologised to Ed Miliband after a reporter turned up uninvited at a family memorial service, but insisted the incident did not reflect the “culture and practices” of his papers“, which we can of course set as fictional when we see the ordeal of Lilly Wachowski just faced.

So until the Daily Mail starts their front-page with ‘alleged trans gender’s Harold Jonathan Harmsworth and Paul Dacre surprised their staff by growing some balls‘, they have now promised to actively dig into the involvement of PwC regarding Tesco. I very much doubt that it will ever happen, so until that moment comes, why don’t we make sure that the public at large gets to see every act from these Daily Mail journalists and their family members? I reckon that the public has a right to know, let’s see how many articles and photographs it takes for these revelations until we get:

  1. Some fake apology
  2. Threats that there is oppression against the freedom of the press
  3. Demands from Whitehall against acts that endangers the independence of journalists.

In all this, it seems utterly unlikely that the Daily Mail will hold itself up to any scrutiny and any level of Ethics and/or Integrity.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

To do or not to do

Weirdly enough, the act, the thought and the interest is not new. The ‘wisdom’ has been seen as early as the 60’s in public toilets.

Socrates tells us that “To be is to do”
Jean-Paul Sartre states that “To do is to be”
Frank Sinatra taught us: “Do be do be do”

Socrates, or So Crates as Keanu Reeves called him, started the thought, yet in the 19th century French philosopher, Sartre, who also dabbled in playwrights, novels, biographies, literary criticism was also a political activist. In his philosophical views, he share the view of Existentialism, where philosophical thinking begins with the human subject, hence, we can ask whether he should be on the side of So Crates. Even as Existentialists are often seen as ‘too abstract and remote’ from concrete human experience, we might wonder, because of the actions of Sartre whether he was a true Existentialist. Perhaps he was an academically inclined individual on the path of applied logics in the evolving field of pragmatism. His view on Phenomenology, or over simplified ‘taken intentionally as directed toward something’, as some might see it as ‘the hammering of a nail’, yet in all this, does one consider that the nail ‘just’ is?

So where is this going?

Well this is about a BBC article titled ‘Did Sean Penn break the law with El Chapo interview?‘ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35228910).

The quotes that are in question is “In his Rolling Stone piece, Mr Penn talked about the use of burner phones and other methods used to escape detection by authorities. Many people have wondered whether Mr Penn broke the law with his reporting – and whether or not he could be prosecuted“, so is there really a ‘group’ of many people, or is there a select group of some people in specific positions? By the way, burner phones are used in a massive amount of ways by people in many circles, the financial circle for one, the intelligence circle as another side and both have been illuminated by novels, TV shows and movies in a massive way, so why mention this part at all?

The quote ““Simply having contact with a known narco-trafficker is not the basis of prosecution,” said Daniel Richman, a professor of law at Columbia University and a former federal prosecutor” is equally important, because as is, why place this article in such light? Because some people are as the quote gives “his interview has made people uncomfortable“, really?

Why is that? You see, many people (many thousands) in the UK have been extremely uncomfortable with the Tesco affair and the involvement of Pricewaterhouse Coopers, how many people have shone a light on this within the BBC, or any other large media outlet for print or multimedia?

Would the answer be Zip or Zilch?

The last quote in the article is actually interesting “As Cesar Diaz, a former senior special agent who worked on investigations of Pablo Escobar, a Colombian drug trafficker, said: “If I was a Mexican authority, I would want to know: How in the heck did Sean Penn know where El Chapo was and we didn’t?”“, most likely he is deceiving the listener with his statement, you see, very likely El Chapo knew exactly where Sean Penn was, not the other way around and as such, one was brought to the other, Cesar Diaz actually knows this. Perhaps he is steering away from the issue that CNN gave light to (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/15/americas/mexico-corruption-el-chapo-escape/) on July 16th 2015. Where we see “but a series of scandals in the past year already had top Mexican officials in the hot seat. And Guzman’s escape, experts say, shines an even harsher spotlight on a problem that historically has stretched from police on the streets to the highest halls of power“, which is nothing new really, we have seen it in many sources, now, we might agree that not all sources are reliably honest, yet when we see a ‘random’ 3465 articles regarding corruption, how many would we need to show that there is a massive issue in that regard? In that view, is it equally far-fetched that El Chapo got a phone call from the airport where a young lady with a warm voice states “Senor, your movie star friend from New York La Guardia has arrived 10 minutes ago, tener un día maravilloso!” That would have been the start for a mere pick-up job. Cesar Diaz knows this, there is little mystery here.

Yet as we see all the speculation and worded effort to try to show that something is here, how come that the BBC and all other players are taking a wide berth around the issues of Tesco and the 3 billion drop in value? I gave a little light towards this yesterday, there is little to no action, what scares them?

Now it is time to get back to my slightly lower than basic feel of philosophy. If we accept that Phenomenology is ‘the study of the structures of experience and consciousness‘ how would the press be valued as we see the structure of ‘morality and values‘ regarding the interview of one person regarding another, let’s say, a person with an arts direction and his observations and interactions with an escaped drug baron, perhaps ruler of a drug empire would be better, yet in that same light, the professional press will not step anywhere near Pricewaterhouse Coopers regarding their involvement in a scandal that broke Tesco in little pieces, an involvement as shown by their peer Deloitte we see a version that forces us to ask additional questions regarding the acts that PwC was involved in, so in all that, the press stays away? How can we remain conscious, or better evolve consciousness whilst the press, regarded historically as the evolving factor of our opinion of events, how can we rely on that press who can to a larger extent no longer be trusted in their assessment of what is an issue?

In a similar light, as we see Existentialism as a view where we see that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. As such, is Sean Penn defining meaning in life? Is he giving us a view where we get to see how the world in some places are managed and arranged? Is that the view that scares Cesar Diaz? Is that the view that scares the ‘uncomfortable’ people? Many know the reality that life for some people in some continents are very different to the one we face.

In that same view, as Existentialism believes that we are free to do, to be and as we must take personal responsibility for ourselves (and our actions), which act is the most immoral one, the path Sean Penn took, or the path the UK press at large refuses to take as they seem to cater to the need of their advertisers and not regarding the path the people are entitled to be informed on? When did the newspaper become the projection of presentation, when did it stop to be the critical informer of events as they happened? So as the press answers that their Existentialism comes with angst, we need to ask regarding the type of angst, angst regarding their income, their career, or their boss. How many of these flags would it take to see them not as journalists, but as mere cowards with some writing skills and decent punctuation? I am just asking!

No, as I see it these facilitators ignore the outside sources, deny angst and move to the music and dance (off the beat) as Sinatra sings ‘Do Be Do Be Do’.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics