Tag Archives: Prime Minister

Is it really Russia?

The independent was making us aware a mere 11 hours ago that ‘Russia and far right spreading disinformation ahead of EU elections, investigators say‘ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-elections-latest-russia-far-right-interference-fake-news-meddling-a8910311.html), now it might be that Russia is trying to make waves, yet the reality is that politicians and their allegiance to big business are already spreading enough misinformation (read: one sided information) to make the people distrust these politicians. I partially discussed this yesterday in ‘The Mental delay‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/05/12/the-mental-delay/). So when I see: “It is to constantly divide, increase distrust and undermine our faith in institutions and democracy itself“, my response would be: “Do not worry, Tony Blair is already achieving that, he does not need the Russians to achieve that goal.” So, when we consider that, what is my angle? It is a fair and important question. The matter involving the Brexit party and Nigel Farage have escalated because of inaction and attempts to sway against a referendum that had already been decided. The Business Insider (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/remain-wars-britain-anti-brexit-parties-tearing-each-other-apart-change-uk-liberal-democrats-2019-5) is giving us: “the prospects for remaining in the EU appear on the surface to be better than ever before, bickering between the country’s anti-Brexit parties now risks throwing that advantage away“, which is odd as the referendum for Brexit was won, so it seems that the voice of the people is openly ignored, and it angers half the nation, so they are willing to let Nigel Farage sort it out for them. Yet the Business Insider also shows another side. With “Change UK instead decided to go its own way, writing off the Lib Dems as spent force and calling on its members to quit and jump ship to Change UK, with the mission of quickly becoming the premier anti-Brexit party“, we see different groups, all wanting to be the captain, so that they can reap the rewards from large corporations, I’ll admit that the last part is my own speculation. You see big business is never about rewarding the group, merely the one keeping them all in check, that is what big business needs and it makes the Bremainers infighters, all wanting a taste of that sweet pie of victory, as well as a taste of the gravy train, the two elements why most people inside and outside the EU want the EU to stop. It cannot keep proper checks and balances and the less said about that monumental failure currently called the ECB the better.

So is Russia Innocent?

I do not think so (better stated, I do not know), and if we are to believe former FBI analyst Daniel Jones (there is currently no evidence that he is not to be believed) we see the act “Senate investigator whose non-profit group, Advance Democracy, recently flagged a number of suspicious websites and social media accounts to law enforcement authorities” is not to be ignored, yet as I see the group that I would personally label ‘stupid political people‘ are doing a fine job by themselves, there is enough distrust to go around for decades at present. Yet there is another part in this. The quote “It is nearly impossible to quantify the scale and resonance of the misinformation. Researchers say millions of people see the material.” the problem is not that it is merely them; the media itself is the problem. The media who is setting the stage by offering one sided stories whilst the bulk of all the people know that there is another side, they are adding fuel to the fire and that is not recognised in the entire data setup at present. The Yemeni war is the clearest example. The bulk of all papers handing blame to Saudi Arabia, whilst they openly ignored the actions from Iran and Hezbollah attacking Saudi Arabia via Yemen, as well as arming the Houthis in all this. Not once, not twice, but consistently, in addition in several events the actions of Turkey was set aside because it was inconvenient towards Turkish talks, that alone should wake you up regarding the one sided exposure and therefor handing out more distrust. So at present I had to giggle regarding Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, as he stated roughly two months ago “Suspecting someone of an event that has not yet happened is a bunch of paranoid nonsense“. He is of course correct, but that does not make him innocent does it? A man is innocent of hoping to screw the prima ballerina of the Bolshoi, and walking around with a condom does not make him guilty, neither is his desire to get lucky, but we can call him out on having the condom on him as he enters the restaurant meeting Svetlana Zakharova for dinner, we can call him out through envy (she is truly amazingly gorgeous), we can call him out on desire (making us wrathful on missing out on the opportunity to be him) the list goes on, yet he is right nothing happened at present. In the end the best thing we have after the event might be the evidence of intent, yet intent after the fact towards something that might never be proven in court is still a huge miss.

And when we make the tally, we can to some degree clearly see that the current politicians made us more distrustful than any Russian action at present, and the media aided in this, they all have their own political agenda side, the media has not been neutral for the longest of times.

Then I notice something that does impact. When I see: “Distinguishing Russian interference from clickbait or sincere political outrage is difficult, even for intelligence services“, that is not entirely true. The analysts are (often) looking in the wrong direction. You see, the stage is not the news; it is the line of forwarding. I noticed that over the last three weeks there were ladies wanting to connect to me, and it came with ‘tit shots‘ and ‘prominent ass poses‘, so they were either cheap ladies hoping to strike an hourly bargain, or they were honey traps (they tend to be the second), so there is piece number one (pun intended), the forwarding started from that point forward and more important, the presence of that account is also a data point to consider. The forwarding news has an origin and Facebook has that original post as well as the originator, so there we see two pieces ready for mining. Even as troll farms have a larger set of systems, they still start at a limited amount of routers, an element ignored. There are not too much masking options in mass spreading, even if it changes per message pushed, the list is decently exhaustive and it is the analysing of the hop path that shows the fake router, and as such we see that a path is now optionally established. That did not take long did it? I did my CCNA 8 years ago, yet that point is there. It is how I designed the cloud intrusion stage. It is a Router_n + 1 approach; it is not the originating router, the two routers after those optionally downscale paths towards the point of origin.

You see, even as we are given: “The digital trail often winds up in one of the internet’s anonymised dead ends“, we see no anonymity in the normal spreading of social media or even sharing of posts, the anonymity gives us the initial red flag; the router path can give us a lot more. The simplest of all solutions has been ignored by the lot of them. When I share news (usually because it is funny, or a nice indecent or Monday morning pun (example added). In all this a clear path can be established, so why is all the other not flagged and optionally removed? There is a right of expression from your own account, should hidden shares not all be auto removed? Was that example perhaps a little too simple for them?

We are all so intent on blaming Facebook for being too big, blaming them for not policing what was never supposed to be policed, it is also time to hold a light to those abusing the options available, in all this there is a lack of truly investigating not social media, but the usage of digital media and digital advertising. And that is where the problem starts, the moment that voice goes to town suddenly we see politicians starting to shout on the infringement of the people, the politicians are part of the problem and seeing that is the first step in recognising that the problem is a lot larger. When we start investigating election fraud versus voter fraud, we see a stage where it is not unlikely that the true mountain is not the voter fraud. And that is not all, when is it voter fraud, when is it logistical error and incompetence? You merely have to Google ‘election fraud‘ you will find issues in Texas and South Africa, but what was exactly the case and when was action taken? What actions were taken and was it in time? All that and when we focus on the European election and the ‘instigations’ by the Russians, I wonder how much an impact they are having, or basically the EU elections has bigger problems to sort out and the media is one of those problems to a much larger degree than anyone is willing to admit to.

This is a clear case where the premise of Oliver Hazard Perry, an American naval commander: ‘We have met the enemy and they are ours‘ (1812), which was freely translated into ‘We have met the enemy and they are us‘, as we agree that we tend to be our own worst enemy, did anyone consider that social media could emphasize this no less than tenfold?

So is it really Russia, or do we need to take a look at what we enable ourselves and facilitate for? Acknowledging that we have a social media usage problem will be the first step in scaling the dangers down.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science

Showing your bad hand

There was an article that nagged me, on the surface it felt like a waste of space, one of those….the government did something that does not affect most people. Now that is not an attack on the press, because that is what they do, they report things. Now, there is nothing about this report that is wrong, there is however a clear indication that a few people did not think this through, even more so, the actions give rise to a tactical blunder that should keep the members of the Special Forces Club in Knightsbridge snigger for some time to come. You see, the article called ‘Man charged in NSW town of Young over alleged missile advice to Isis‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/28/man-arrested-nsw-town-young-alleged-missile-advice-isis) is more than just a tactical blunder. Solar technician Haisem Zahab at present in Junee Correctional Centre after being arrested in Young charged with terrorism offences. So how is this person a terrorist (he is in legal definition)? Haisem Zahab, 42 was according to the info on Facebook a Solar technician. When you see the quote “acted with intent to provide Isil with the capability, with the technical capability, and high-tech capability, to detect and develop missiles“, howls of deriving laughter wash over me. I was trained with NATO gear and I reckon I would be a better fit here (even though I know how uselessly limited my knowledge is). Now consider for a moment the next article (at http://www.iran-bn.com/2016/11/29/us-iranian-citizen-convicted-for-trying-to-buy-missiles-for-iran/), which was last year, when an Iran-United States dual citizen named Reza Olangian was trying to acquire these items, not develop them. So instead of someone alerting someone at ASIS to see if a sting can be devised that allowed for Haisem Zahab to start his ‘mission’, ASIS professionals could monitor him and start setting up the operation to drain the IS bank accounts by introducing IS and Haisem Zahab to a technology salesperson with actual blueprints (perhaps ever so slightly altered) and sell this to Islamic State, the quote “the man arrested has sought to advise Isil on how to develop high-tech weapons capability” is still making me snigger, because the credible part is that he was an ‘electrician’. Oh, the tears of laughter are rolling down my cheeks! I am not sure if AFP commissioner, Andrew Colvin got Nick Warner involved, but when you consider the following quotes it might sound serious: “He said the man was allegedly involved in “researching and designing laser warning devices to help warn against incoming guiding munitions used by coalition forces in Syria and Iraq” and helping Isis develop its own long-range guided missile capabilities“, we will need to take it apart into the components.

  1. Laser warning devices to help warn against incoming guiding munition. So how advanced is that? To give you a viewpoint. Israel has the Arrow 2 which took almost 13 years to complete (it had been completed earlier, but the tests were done over a longer period of time). The Arrow 2 is what people call an ABM (Anti-ballistic missile systems), now this was designed by group of around a dozen experts in rocket science, electronics and aerodynamics. It was a multi-billion dollar event. Even if this electrician got to a missile completed to a certain degree, which is actually not that far-fetched, because missiles have become more precise, but like mortars, the foundation goes back a long way and that part is not that complex, yet here a Dragster mechanic will get a lot further than an electrician. Now, to introduce a hidden electronic switch that turns the detector into an attractor is not that large a call, so we give IS 2-3 ‘wins’ and when we see that they implement the detection solution, ASIS throws the switch and the detector will instantly attract missiles, so with one volley their detection system is gone and likely a lot more hardware on the side as well.
  2. as for “helping Isis develop its own long-range guided missile capabilities“, I will now take 5 minutes to roll on the floor, my stomach is giving me waves of cramps from laughter. To help you understand that part, the missile technology is not that hard. You can make a missile in your garage, but consider that HAMAS has been firing (with Iranian help) thousands of actual missiles, which included the FAJR-5, based on the Chinese exported model WS-1 MLRS. A rocket that took close to 13 years to get right and that one has had not one tactical success on Israel, how long do you think it will take to get anything up to scrap? Especially when you consider the Arrow 2 part? It would be a lot easier to develop a high tech mortar. The foundations of the mortar have never changed, to some extent, the 1450 version of the mortar is still the foundation that was used in Vietnam, what changed is that electronics allow mortars to be a lot more accurate and efficient. Now we have computers that help the aim, but it is to some extent still an art to get it right in one shot. To get the missiles correctly aimed takes a lot more and in that regard, the tactical option to have IS waste loads of cash might have been a much better approach, so when I see the photo with Malcolm Turnbull, pictured with AFP commissioners Andrew Colvin and Ian McCartney, I see a mere political quick fix! Now, we need to acknowledge that this is in all legal settings, so in that regard he had been correctly arrested. This we see in the Criminal Code Act 1995, where in 101.2 we see:

101.2 Providing or receiving training connected with terrorist acts
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person provides or receives training; and
(b) the training is connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act; and
(c) the person mentioned in paragraph (a) knows of the connection described in paragraph (b).

This gives him a maximum 25 year governmental hotel voucher and as I personally see it, the line between consultant and trainer is thin enough to make it stick.

So we know he is going down, yet the quote “charged with two foreign incursion offences which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment” is different. You see that gives us “prepare to enter, or for another person to enter, a foreign country with an intention to engage in a hostile activity. Recruit persons to join an organisation engaged in hostile activities, or to serve in or with an armed force in a foreign country“, which should be fun, because the expert knowledge he offered (basically consultancy), here the Mens Rea might be satisfied, but the Actus Rea is not. Missiles are set to not need ‘another person to enter, a foreign country‘, which might happen, but is not a given, so the intent to never enter a foreign country could be achieved by the defence of Haisem Zahab, the ‘with an intention to engage in a hostile activity‘ would be proven, yet the text is ‘for another person to enter, a foreign country with an intention to engage in a hostile activity‘, the moment that the foreign border was not surpassed, the issue becomes vague and a legal victory becomes a little blurred, basically Islamic State is already a transgressor in any nation they are in, but if those governments will not speak out against that, the issue might not legally be won.

So we get a lot of press, all cameras with cowboy stories and in the meantime Director General Nick Warner was denied the option to deal Islamic State a severe body blow. Yup, there will be laughter in Knightsbridge tonight. And should you consider that I am awfully wrong (always a valid consideration to have) than take a look at the case of Omar Succarieh, which was set to 4.5 years, the appeal to get him in there longer is being heard (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-31/omar-succarieh-sentence-inadequate-court-hears/8227068), with the quote “Justice Philip Morrison said the case appeared to be in the middle range for the offence which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment“, which now gives the option of another change. You see, in the case of Omar Succarieh it was mere funds made available. If any defence of Haisem Zahab comes with words like ‘delusional‘ (an electrician making missile systems), or gets any missile expert from Raytheon or Northrop Grumman to show how complex missile systems actually are, the quote “the research he was alleged to have been doing was “credible”” could be thrown out of the window. By the way, this 18 month investigation, what INTEL did ASIS (if any) supply? I still think this was an option to do something long term against Islamic State.

Now, here we get to the title of today ‘showing your bad hand‘. You see, from where I sit, the entire situation gives rise to another matter. If we see actions as given, we are seeing a setting where political players have to admit that there is no short solution. The papers on a global scale, actual newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, The Australian and others have published papers on this and they gave us this in 2015: “But no strategy intended to defeat Islamism can succeed if Islamism itself and its violent expression in jihadism are not first named, isolated and understood“, which is at present not achieved, so this entire IS, is a long term game and there is no end in sight at present. This is extremely important, because as I personally see it, these little arrests with loads of camera’s will not bring resolution, the ability to set up shop and make IS spend their funds in all the wrong places is the first step to prevent IS to set up a successful long term strategy to develop larger weapon systems. And if you think that it stops here in Young, New South Wales, you would be wrong, because at some point, an Islamic State person will meet with dodgy types in Eastern Europe and broker a deal there. There are too many players willing to not care what happens in the Middle East and there is plenty of Russian goods all over Eastern Europe. This now implies that as some people go shopping elsewhere, and in that place they might not get a basket full of junk, they might actually end up with something useful, an idea we need to actively dread.

Because the bad hand shown and the fact that others will also realise that some players have a bad hand, only opens the doors to some places outside of our sphere of influence. I see this as a tactic badly played, but that might be just me. I will leave it up to you to decide how wrong I am and when you get a moment, ask your electrician how good his missile designs are, it could make for an interesting day and that is always a win for any person.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics, Science

Gimme some Sugar

In the week where we saw the disgraceful act by Sam Gyimah, a British Conservative, who made sure that the wrongs against gays in the past remain, he filibustered the meeting, so that the Gay population will be stigmatised a little longer. Hiding behind “We have developed a way to do this without giving any perception that the pardon covers perpetrators of sex with a minor or non-consensual sex“, whilst it has been known quite clearly that there is no pardon for acts that are still criminal. We could ask if he has had non-consensual sex lately, because that might give cause for confusion. As I see it, this seems to be nothing more than the shameful act by a homophobic government representative. Yet that is actually not the worst what is happening. You see, George Osborne has had a few decent ideas and one of them was the Sugar Tax. The information that we get to some extent (at https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/oct/21/soft-drinks-industry-lobbies-government-dilute-scrap-sugar-tax), shows the information that “Research has found that drinking more than two sugary or artificially sweetened soft drinks per day greatly increases the risk of diabetes“, which would be worrying enough for most parents on the best of days. In this age of obesity, something needed to be done and the Sugar Tax would be one way of doing it. Is it the best path?

That is a fair enough question, and it could have been debated if the large corporations had actually done something, but they did not. They were in it to maximise profits. One could argue that the soft drinks companies are the new cigarette companies. The information that we get from all kinds of debatable sources is because the media at large refuses to properly inform the people. It is the old story of what I regard to be ‘whoring for advertisement‘ that is part of all that. The initial news (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/16/george-osbornes-sugar-tax-economic-fears-budget), gave us the goods that when we see the Sugar Tax as “eventful by any standards”, you better realise that there will be plenty of opposition.

But that is not the biggest issue in this. The article that drew my attention gives us the following parts. “Health campaigners in favour of the proposed soft drinks industry levy said they are concerned that neither Theresa May nor Philip Hammond has personally spoken out in support of the tax since coming to office“, the fact that this gets delegated to junior ministers gives rise to the fear that things will get bungled and that implementation will be delayed or just blatantly rejected. This article also has a few issues. One of them is “At a drinks party at the Tory conference sponsored by the industry, a spokesman for the British Soft Drinks Association pleaded with Greg Clark, the business secretary, and MPs on the Conservative Reform Group to drop support for the levy, saying it would harm small businesses and cause job losses at a difficult time for the economy“. The first clear issue is who exactly was this spokesperson?

So, I decided to take another look and my first impression is that this BSDA reads like a joke (I have an evolved sense of humour, often intensely inappropriate). It starts with Health ‘Helping our consumers reduce their calorie and sugar intake‘. It comes with the picture of a woman you want to fuck six ways from Sunday on a daily basis. So we see nameless products with labels like Product Innovation Sugar Reduction and Smaller pack sizes. At this point you wonder what you are in for, in the ‘UK Economy section’ we see how £11 billion was added to the economy. This sounds so nice, but where was it added to the economy? Being THEIR revenue? That is aid to them, but is it truly aid to the UK economy? This site just reeks like corporate marketing in what they call a ‘non-profit coat’ and it is high time some changes are made.

From my point starting by adding to the sugar tax would be a great idea.

You see, the executive council of the British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA) includes Pepsi, Lucozade, Coca Cola, Red Bull, Tropicana and a few others. Many of them not paying heaps of taxation in the UK, Coca Cola avoided £102 million in the UK in 2012 (I have no clear numbers from the years following that) and was mentioned recently as one of the 50 stashing a total of 1.3 trillion off shore. It is time to stop enabling these large corporations, because this is one of the main reasons the NHS can no longer continue the way it did. If there was no large scale tax evasion, the sugar tax would never have come into existence.  In addition, stories on what Diet Coke apparently seems to do to the human body and the relentless support from the media through not illuminating it, because of the advertisement they represent. So for the most, many people, perhaps even better stated most people are unaware of certain cause and effect issues seen due to the usage of what we now laughingly refer to as the ‘diet fuzzy drinks’.

So now we get back to the lady on page one. You see, if the members of the BSDA are not doing their part other than hiding behind statistics, changes will be required. So if we need more physical exercise the BDSA can send their fitness/yoga outfitted lady to my address where I can lose 15,000 calories a day through consensual sex (when doing it 3 times a day that is).

Is this thought too inappropriate?

I think the BSDA is a hatchet job in this age of marketing to serve the interest of large corporations and their needs. Their needs being profit and only profit. The issues of the BSDA is just like the acts of Sam Gyimah. They are legal and part of the political life that needs to be frowned upon. The fact that the BSDA a non-profit organisation is bombarding advertisements with added twitter stories from a ‘Tunbridge Wells newsagent‘ whose business will be ruined by sugar tax. If that is truly so, perhaps they should try to sell newspapers. The fact that their business survives on sugary drinks is a bit of an issue, as they tend to be over 150% more expensive then the nearest supermarket. Just a thought!

These levels of marketing require a lot more scrutiny and no one is stepping to the plate to do so. A harsh reality of big business in charge. Yet, there is more, the BSDA reports on one of their pages “‘We are pleased that the latest NDNS data shows a decline of over 8% in teenagers’ sugar intake from soft drinks between 2012 – 2014“, which is a statement that might be true, but where is the data? The second statement is one I have a definite issue with. The quote “Soft drinks companies have taken significant action to help their consumers reduce their sugar intake since the NDNS data was collected over 2 years ago. Independent analysis confirms that sugar intake from soft drinks has been reduced by over 16% in the last four years“, I believe this to be incorrect. You see Coca Cola is as ‘sweet’ as it ever was, so were most other drinks. So here we see the switch from ‘sugar’ to these ‘diet’ drinks and the dangers there have been avoiding visible presentation and scrutiny from the media at large, because they are nowadays too much about circulation and advertisement. Then the page goes one step further and states “we understand there is more to do and only last year we set ourselves a 20% calorie reduction target by 2020“, now it is suddenly about calories? calories are mostly from sugar, meaning that this is about alternative ‘additives’, they might not show up on the calorie list, but there is enough worry to consider that it will show a long term effect on the human body. No one can know for sure, which is a truth in itself, but the fact that there are long term considerations and the fact that the almighty US FDA is suddenly way too quiet and we see certain aspects, we now also see that the FDA is now no more than a valve of corporate discrimination as to what is considered safe, set by who is bringing it to market. Is that not an interesting development? The fact that we see in this place that “A 2010 Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine review of the literature on artificial sweeteners concludes that, “research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain”” (at https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/diet-soda-fraud/), whilst the media is too quiet is equally disturbing. The fact that the BSDA is all about promoting the biggest ‘dealers’ in sugary substances (with the clear exception of the British Sugar at http://www.britishsugar.co.uk/), seems to be pushed slowly into the background of the issue. The issue was the sugar tax!

So what economy is brought into danger? When we see Coca-Cola Coke 1.75L £1.71 and Any 2 for £2.00 (Source: Tesco), either the margins are astronomical, or Coca Cola is giving away their profits, what do you think is more likely to be the truth? So when we include taxation and Cola becomes 2 for £2.20-£2.40. Considering they are giving the second bottle for only £0.29, are they really in danger? Are any of those soft drink manufacturers in actual danger? No they are not, because in the end, there is a group that will stop getting the second bottle, yet in my pragmatic view, it is more likely that families will now only get this article twice a month instead of weekly. Which would reduce the sugar intake by a massive amount. Also, in light of the BSDA statement that teenagers were reducing intake by 8%, now consider that we see that Coca-Cola Coke 1.75L contains 29.0% sugar. How likely is that the 8% is just a weighted average and that the numbers are not that positive? I am using Coca Cola as an example, yet when we see that regular Pepsi contains 31.0% sugar, it seems clear that I have a case here. Now Pepsi might come with the response that their revenue comes from the Pepsi Max drinks, yet here we see ‘Low Calorie Cola Flavoured Soft Drink with Sweeteners‘ and ‘Contains a Sourced of Phenylalanine‘, with twice the sentence: ‘contains no sugar’. Yet the mention made me search and WebMD has this (at http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/phenylalanine-uses-and-risks). The warning is “Doses higher than 5,000 milligrams a day can cause nerve damage“, which sees like a really dangerous issue (and a massive dose is needed), yet there is no mention at all how much is in Pepsi Max, only that it has 0% sugar (on the website). In addition, the risk mention is “And use caution in taking phenylalanine if you have: High blood pressure, Trouble sleeping, Anxiety or other psychiatric problems, Also, it is unknown whether this supplement is safe in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

That is a lot of risk groups, knowing that high blood pressure is a risk group here and also considering that “Approximately 16 million people in the UK have high blood pressure” (source: NHS UK) gives us that 24% of the population is a risk factor, so in my view, at that at this Conservative Tea Party (where tea is unlikely to be served), it seems to be sound advice that representing Pepsi, Mr Mark Elwell – PepsiCo International, remains quiet as a mouse. It seems to me that his conscience is better served with the Sugar tax in place, but that is just me speculating.

So here we see that those fueling the NHS customer base, are mostly all about not having to pay any bills in this matter. I think that the people forgot the 2004 movie Super-Size Me. Even as this was mostly about McDonalds, the fact that we are supersizing ourselves with that second bottle at a mere £0.29, we are doing the harm to ourselves. It is more than just taxation by rescuing us from ourselves. The Soft Drinks industry has the ability to throw millions in advertisement on a playful and sporty youth, yet they are not representative of this healthy life style, not to the degree it should be and that is the real danger. The fact that the BSDA spin machine is running at full power and that the image at present is that Prime Minister Theresa May is not taking this as serious as she should (by setting this agenda on the collar of a senior Conservative) is equally disturbing. You see, if the sugar tax is watered down or stricken off, she has absolutely no rights to deny the NHS the funds they need and she will have to order the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Right Honourable Philip Hammond to find those needed funds. In my view, good luck to that tall order, because there are almost no margins left to play with, the Sugar Tax was the first real step in creating some level of margins (to the smallest extent).

We have to admit that the BSDA has a right to do the things they are doing, they aren’t breaking any laws, yet the linked issues are there and the press overall for one isn’t doing its job to the extent they should be. When we see the end of the initial Guardian article, we see “The charity Action on Sugar has said the tax will have an impact on intake because people respond to price, but the government has said it wants the cost of the tax to be borne by the industry and not consumers“, there is truth in that and there is misleading parts in that. That is, when we widen the statement ‘the tax to be borne by the industry‘. You see, tax law overhaul is the only way to do this, the sugar tax will have an impact to the margin of profit making the industry increase the prices. That seems just mere logical. However, if we can make people reduce the purchase of these drinks, that too would be a positive effect. Any chance in lowering the intake of sugar and artificial sweeteners would be a massive win for the population of Britain. The fact that the government saw raising prices as a solution for the tobacco industry and not for the soft drinks industry is also worrying. You see, there is a direct health risk, so making these lemonades unaffordable would make sense, the fact that this isn’t treated as the dangers they represent, just like the denial we saw in the 80’s on tobacco is cause for distress and reason for debate. The only interesting ‘coincidence‘ is the quote in the Guardian, which is “The link between sugary drinks and obesity has been well documented with evidence suggesting they account for 29% of 11- to 18-year-olds’ daily sugar intake” and this is exactly the amounts of sugar that Coca Cola has in its bottles. Life is full of little coincidences, isn’t it?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

And so it begins!

The ink from my WordPad app has not even dried from the articles a few days ago. And in the UK 5 hours ago we see the following events unfurl in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/17/imf-urges-eu-to-slim-down-its-demands-on-greece). The title is already glooming bad vibes as it states: ‘IMF urges EU to slim down its demands on Greece‘, so here is the first part.

Now we look at the quotes “The International Monetary Fund has urged EU negotiators to slim down their list of demands in debt talks with Greece amid fears that time is running out to reach a deal” as well as the statement by Yanis Varoufakis “There has never been a key date. We have to see everything in combination and cumulatively. On the 24th [April] there will not be a solution, there will be progress“. This is at the centre of deception, this is why Europe is about to face the harsh reality of the people having enough!

The realisation was already there two days ago when I ‘accused’ Mario Draghi of being either Reckless or incompetent. That call was very valid in light of the dangers that Greece faces. Now it becomes a viable thought that there was never any danger for Greece to begin with and they can play the game the way they like, because someone else is willing to play footsie with their inaction.

Now we get to the statement by the Chancellor George Osborne, who stated that one misstep in the Greek debt negotiations could return Europe to the ‘perilous state’ of 2011 and 2012. The problem here is not the negotiations, but the fact that Greece is unwilling to do anything. The statement of Yanis Varoufakis makes that a given. In addition, progress or not, if acceptable plans are not delivered by April 24th, they should not be allowed to get the 7.2 billion. But here is the kicker, that makes Grexit a direct reality and if we reiterate the words from Mario Draghi, that was never a consideration.

So here comes my predicament: “If the UK (Prime Minister David Cameron and the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne) do not put the hammer down at this point, there is every indication that the British voters see this in the air of ‘more of the same’ and they would hand the dangers of a massive victory towards UKIP”. This is not just a simple party issue. The taxpayers of the United Kingdom at large will not accept the austerities they face, whilst the Greek politicians are playing with themselves in the shower not doing anything productive. People from all over Labour, Conservatives as well as the Liberal Democrats will then listen to the words of Nigel Farage when he can state with some pride: “I told you so!”, that movement will not be a small one and the orchestration we are likely to face between April 24th and May 5th will only push people towards UKIP faster. Should Mario Draghi, Christine Lagarde and Pierre Moscovici ignore this, then be certain that the cold turkey that is about to be served will not taste too good for them.

They are already making changes to the timeline, as the statement was made 9 hours ago: “European Commissioner Pierre Moscovici has thrown down a challenge to Greece; you must produce a concrete set of reforms by May 11“, why the delay again? To make sure it comes AFTER the UK elections? No, time is up dear players!

You see, the UK is only step one, the tidal wave towards UKIP is nothing compared to the wave National Front and Marine Le Penn will gain under these conditions. Although the matter will not be as strong for the Dutch as their elections are not until 2018, the Dutch PVV would benefit the conditional game that some are playing now.

 

We see part of the fear in a response we saw less than 24 hours ago. One response is: “GREECE’S MAIN CREDITORS SAID TO BE UNWILLING TO ALLOW EURO EXIT You surprised? Natch they’d like their money back and pref the EU to sub it“, which is what we expected all along and the voters can reduce that risk by well over 7 billion by tossing Greece out of the Euro now. In addition we see the mention: “Greek FinMin Varoufakis: Draghi meeting lasted an hour, he said he wants a resolution soon to help #Greece grow“. Is that so?

Growth in Greece is pretty much not an option, when you have nothing left, you can only whether the storm by nailing down the hatches and let part of your crew (read the Greek population) drown. The fact that Tsipras has not done anything substantial since he got elected should be a clear indication, the entire rockstar Varoufakis tour going past every nation (in really nice hotels) has gotten the Greek people nothing more than ‘On the 24th [April] there will not be a solution, there will be progress‘ is at the heart of the matter. Billions (from rich Greeks) are safely out of Greece (read Swiss bank accounts) and those questioning that were thrown into court, no actions on previous administrations have been made and no setting to reduce the costs that the Greek government cannot pay for have been addressed. So tell me, why would anyone desire to keep Greece in the fold, when the first route Tsipras took was a trip to the Kremlin (you know, the people behind the Eastern Ukraine debacle)?

So what is in store for the UK? This is at the centre, because the ‘manage bad news’ cycles that we see from team Lagarde-Draghi will be fuelling the Farage engine more than anything else. It is not just that people are expecting Greece to be ‘saved’ again, it is done whilst those making loads of money are not held to account. By the way Mr Draghi, I hit on hard times and whilst I am doing anything possible. I am making little progress, so can you please deposit £650.000, which I will repay at 0.1% interest annual over 30 year. Seems only fair that you give the amount to people more responsible (especially me) than the Greek elected officials, ‘n’est-ce pas?‘ and ‘sans rancune‘ (after the deposit).

This gives me the next part in all this. When you take a look at the Guardian election page, it seems to me that apart from one piece by Stuart Heritage, the visibility of UKIP is almost none existent. The fear that the other parties have in regards to what UKIP could do is in my view decently staggering. In my personal view, I do not think that UKIP is the right solution for the UK, yet this is decided by voters and as 97.3% of that electorate is nowhere near my intellect and insight, the fact that these people will see it the same way is not a given, more important, when we consider the article by Stuart Heritage (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/nigel-farage-was-the-only-winner-in-final-tv-election-debate), which we see in the quote “Calling out the assembled masses for being a bunch of hoity-toity pinkos, though? That’s madness. That’s suicide. That’s the political equivalent of a Blackmar-Diemer gambit. But Farage knew what he was doing. He knew he still had a MOAB in his back pocket. A showstopper. His very own Candle in the Wind. And so, just when it looked like events were spiralling out of his control, Farage pulled out his joker – the old “Foreigners with Aids are making British people die of cancer” line“, which did the trick, but now consider the following quote we are likely to read soon: “We, hardworking brits are paying for expensive Greek officials, we are paying the money they are spending in many irresponsible ways and we have no option but to accept their extravagant spending, even their own rich do not have to pay for anything there!” how long until the anger of these people demand change? Consider that according to the government 17% of all individuals are on an absolute low income (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325416/households-below-average-income-1994-1995-2012-2013.pdf), in addition, when we compare this in housing we see that 40% of those on relative low incomes are social rented sector tenants. This is a massive part of the UK that is struggling to get by and the banking wealth is very willing to let it all continue, so that those who made a really bad investment (read Greek bonds) will get their money’s worth. How do you think the British population will react in the coming week to the ‘be nice to the Greeks so that we can keep them in the Euro’ group? That is a massive electorate that UKIP can tap into and I feel certain that we will see this happen in the week leading to the election, so April 27th to May 5th as the Greeks will suddenly go into theatrical tragedy mode (read Tsipras and Varoufakis will stand in a ‘we are defeated‘ pose), who will buy it then? If UKIP does sweep the nation Christine Lagarde will have an entirely new danger to deal with, just because she was unable to muzzle the greed driven population trying to get more Greek money. The entire Greek comedy was mishandled from the very day they were allowed to go back to the market (by the way, I think I predicted that one correctly, so please deposit 2.1% of the 40 million in kickbacks the bond traders ended up with in commissions). This should take care of my bar bill for the period 2015-2019.

Yes, when we add it all up, the future looks grim and if team Cameron/Osborne (the team I support) do not bring out the big guns now, my initial prediction in 2013 (where I predicted that Labour and Conservatives ended up in opposition together) could come true. I need to find my application for running a popcorn and peanut stand in front of parliament, because the public bench will be so overcrowded that first year, giving me an interesting enterprising income (to pay back the loan from Mario Draghi), which is what Britain was all about in the first place, to be enterprising!

So, was I enterprising enough? Am I correct?

That part is at the heart of the matter. I do not know, but the dangers of this all happening is growing by the day, every day we see a new excuse on giving the Greeks more time is changing the game we face in both the UK and soon thereafter in France too. So the quote by Michael Gove ‘There will be no Conservative-UKIP deal after the general election, the Tory chief whip Michael Gove has said‘ could be very correct, because if the ECB and IMF do not change their tune, the winnings of UKIP could be large enough for UKIP not to need the Tories at all. But on the positive side, Nick Clegg will end up having a new political idol to follow, isn’t that nice?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics