Tag Archives: the Guardian

March 14, 2022 · 02:45

Not so funny now, is it?

This al started in 2018. In that year I wrote 4 articles. In the first setting a premise that the entire matter does not fit the bill, the bodged assassination, the larger station of failure through complexity. It never made sense and I was clear about that. Yet I believe that MI5 ignored me on this (I would too, honestly) but I would investigate. You cannot be so warped as to think it would stay there. And I gave the larger station in ‘Something for the Silver Screen?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/03/17/something-for-the-silver-screen/), ‘The man in the middle’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/08/07/the-man-in-the-middle/), ‘Could I be wrong?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/09/06/could-i-be-wrong/), and ‘Investigating Self’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/09/12/investigating-self/). Over 4 articles I set a scene that optionally  included KalVista Laboratories and Porton Biopharma, not because they were guilty, but because they had the equipment that a Novichok maker required. There was laughter all around and I merely ignored it. Now the guardian (in an opinion piece) gives us ‘Putin has already deployed a chemical weapon. In Salisbury’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/13/putin-has-already-deployed-a-chemical-weapon-in-salisbury), we see different parts here. Parts I never considered addressing or investigating, as it was not part of the out and open pieces seen. The Guardian gives us “It’s just four years too late. Because he’s already used unconventional weapons. Not in Ukraine, but right here, in Britain. On 4 March 2018, Putin deployed a chemical weapon against a civilian population. Our civilian population. Us.” As well as “The poisoning of Sergei Skripal may have played out in the British press as a “botched assassination attempt”, but that’s just half of a more terrifying story.” So in all it seems that someone is late to the party and before you wonder who, it is MI5. It is 4 years later and I am partially proven correct. Partial because even as I noticed the wallet fatteners, the station of uninvestigated county. I never had anything on Evgeny Lebedev (I had nothing to link him on in the first place) but that makes my scene a mere partial one. It seems that Carole Cadwalladr had more information and better linked information than I had. On the other hand I offered Leonard Rink from the beginning, others did not. And in the end the two Russian cathedral visitors might have been nothing more than a decoy, I gave doubt to a lot of issues there and no one else did (yay me). A station optionally missed by both CIA and MI5, I do say optionally as that is a hand you show no one and I get that. And when we are given “A year later, the Guardian would reveal that Johnson had travelled directly from that summit to the Italian villa of Evgeny Lebedev, the UK-based Russian newspaper proprietor. It published a photograph showing him alone and dishevelled at San Francesco d’Assisi airport, no security in sight.” Is anyone wondering if there is a security breach in progress? I certainly am. We can try and fit the pieces what we have, but it might be folly. There is enough indication that neither Carole or me have a complete picture, she merely make me boast towards a certain person at GCHQ “Not so funny now, is it?” And that is as good as my ego let it be, but I will snore like a baby soon enough (in about 635 seconds). 

Enjoy Monday!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science

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

March 5, 2022 · 05:46

Where are we heading?

That is the stage we comment on and most comment on events in Europe, most would and that is not bad. But something happened in Lebanon that got my attention (something is always happening there). You see, many might have noticed ‘UAE set to be put on money laundering watchdog’s ‘grey list,’ report says’ (source: CNBC), we are given quotes like “The Financial Action Task Force, an intergovernmental organisation dedicated to combatting money laundering and illicit cash flows, is set to put the United Arab Emirates on its “grey list” over concerns that the Gulf country isn’t sufficiently stemming illegal financial activities”, now I am not debating it, it might be true, it might not. I cannot lay claims to events I have no data on. But whilst we see that, Reuters also gives us (at https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/lebanese-bank-closes-over-30-british-held-accounts-after-uk-ruling-depositors-2022-03-04/) ‘Lebanese bank closes over 30 British-held accounts after UK ruling-depositors’ group’. There we see “A Bank Audi official told Reuters the bank was “asking that the UK residents apply the terms applicable to anyone opening a new account: no international transfers, no cash withdrawals””, so just to help me out. You create a bank account and you are not allowed to withdraw cash? How does that make the bank a bank? And we also get “More than $100 billion remains stuck in a banking system paralysed since 2019, when the economy collapsed due to decades of unsustainable state spending, corruption and waste”, as such my question becomes what on earth is the Financial Action Task Force doing monitoring banks? First Credit Suisse, through state sponsored hacking and now we see Bank Audi. Two elements showing a massive cash stage running into the hundreds of billions. So what the hell is the Financial Action Task Force doing? Why are they not investigating banks? We see the mention of Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, the mention of nations, not banks. Banks are seemingly flying below the radar and we see an alleged flaccid response from action groups. Oh and it would be nice to see specifics. Not some journo’s BS approach towards emotional garbage. I discussed this in ‘The presumption is mine’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/02/21/the-presumption-is-mine/) where I wrote “so all that space on what amounts to 0.03% of the entire amount. Just like the ICIJ, shortsighted and a waste of time. So we get repeated invitations to explain 0.03% of what is such a massive leak? Is anyone waking up yet?”, now if the FATF did its job and also gives us why the UAE needs to be on a grey list and NOT the bank it becomes a different story, optionally an acceptable one. That same setting applies to Switzerland, home to 242 banks and Credit Suisse. Oh, and before I forget the data leak never explained (it never will) why such harsh methods needs to be applied to the other 242 banks. No one ever asked that question, not other authorities, not the wannabe journalists either. Is that not weird too?

We need to see where we are going and what games certain parties are playing. I saw the Credit Suisse for nothing but a simple fishing expedition. A chumming exercise by the NSA (most likely culprit) to get some of the fish out there. And no one saw that? I am clever, but I am not that clever (compared to self proclaimed clever people), which (as I personally see it) implies orchestration. 

Am I right, am I wrong? I also ask that question from myself. The Switzerland setting alerted me to weirdness of it all, the UAE draws the setting to the surface. The UAE and its 20 local and 30 foreign banks. Yes that is also the case, so the FATF better come with a very good and very large folder with evidence on a whole range of banks. And before you think the UAE does nothing, we saw a week ago “The government confiscated assets worth $625m last year.” As such I hope that the FATF can prove its setting of “concerns that the Gulf country isn’t sufficiently stemming illegal financial activities” it seems that the UAE has proven activities, so is the FATF merely blowing its own horn? Perhaps it needs to look into the Audi bank and a few other banks too and several of them are not in Switzerland or the UAE. When we see quotes like “About $227.8 million money laundering in USA in 2020 according to our calculation that based 2020 Money Laundering Offense Report”, so how much did the US confiscate? Just asking.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

February 22, 2022 · 10:15

The speculative rage

Yes, there is speculation, there is rage, there is the play and there are the consequences. As I stated about a day ago in ‘The presumption is mine’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/02/21/the-presumption-is-mine/) where I stated “so all that space on what amounts to 0.03% of the entire amount. Just like the ICIJ, shortsighted and a waste of time. So we get repeated invitations to explain 0.03% of what is such a massive leak? Is anyone waking up yet?” A stage play and the Guardian is milking it for EVERYTHING it can, but in doing so it gives a larger play away, and this is not presumption, it is speculation. Yet to see this we need to look at more than one article.

The first one is seen (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/feb/21/revealed-king-jordan-used-swiss-accounts-hoard-massive-wealth) where we are told ‘Revealed: king of Jordan used Swiss accounts to hoard massive wealth’, all yada yada, bla bla and more emotion and the basic part of evidence is missing. What crimes did the King of Jordan commit? We get “According to a massive trove of data leaked from the bank that names both royals as account holders, one account would later be worth a remarkable 230m Swiss francs”, again and again the mention of leaked data, all whilst we need to consider there was no leak, but more about that soon. Now we see 0.28% of the total money mentioned. Then we go on with the next article (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/feb/21/tax-timeline-credit-suisse-scandals) where we are treated to ‘Crooks, kleptocrats and crises: a timeline of Credit Suisse scandals’, we see the list and I am not debating the list, yet how much ‘effort’ did the media do when it comes to investigating players like Price Waterhouse Cooper? You see, it is not about this, or about that, we see the larger play with ‘Switzerland at risk of EU blacklist after Credit Suisse leak’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/feb/21/switzerland-at-risk-of-eu-blacklist-after-credit-suisse-leak), and again the mention of leak. This is (a personal speculation) the EU and US needing to button down, but with a place like Switzerland, there is no stopping what they desperately need, they need revenue and they need their cup filled, the bankrupt are now desperate.

The leak never made sense. I have worked in several places where I get access to data, but never to this degree and that wasn’t even a bank, the bank laws in Switzerland are no fun for bankers. This, as I personally see it, was state orchestrated. 

To see this we need to take the quote “The fallout from a huge leak of Credit Suisse banking data threatened to damage Switzerland’s entire financial sector on Monday after the European parliament’s main political grouping raised the prospect of adding the country to a money-laundering blacklist.” We cannot get the EU to agree on anything. Consider the Politico quote on the EU and covid “The Council press office said the Nice summit took over 90 hours in a tweet Monday afternoon to rein in already spreading rumours claiming the ongoing summit could become the longest by midnight.” There has been a long standing issue on Switzerland and the EU, but times are dire and something will have to give. So when we see “A move to the blacklist would mean Switzerland would face the kind of enhanced due diligence applied to transactions linked to rogue nations including North Korea”, this is one setting, but the larger stage is that the people they want could move their fortunes to the UAE or the Bahama’s all zero tax nations. And in all this with all these articles we still have not seen any collection of data that sets the stage to 7.5%, you know why? Because that was the PWC oversight regarding Tesco, a mere $6,000,000,000 and we see less than that here. But the biggest failing is that we see no transgressions of Swiss Banking Laws. We are given “how a massive leak of Credit Suisse data had uncovered apparently widespread failures of due diligence by the bank”, it is not the leak (well that too), but it is ‘apparently widespread failures’, ONE BANK! Yet now we get “When Swiss banks fail to apply international anti-money-laundering standards properly, Switzerland itself becomes a high-risk jurisdiction”, a statement by Markus Ferber, the coordinator on economic affairs for the EPP, the EPP or sometimes referred to as the sanctimonious Christian fucks of the European Union. So we have one bank, the Credit Suisse Group AG is a global investment bank and financial services firm founded and based in Switzerland. And we optionally have ONE bank transgressing, but for this the entire nation is set on fire. And that is before some people realise that a leak of this nature is not possible under normal conditions. It requires a state player like the NSA, GCHQ or DGSE to get involved. So who was it? 

And in all this the Guardian is again and again all about emotion and less about evidence, why is that? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

February 21, 2022 · 04:59

The presumption is mine

There is a setting that does not agree with me and I have seen this before. Yet before I do that there are two words we need to look at. The first one is speculation, it means ‘the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain’, then there is presumption ‘the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief’. So one is a guess, the other is an educated guess. It is always stronger than a guess, but it is till lacking certain levels of evidence and that is important to know.

This all started as I was just unwinding of several (too many) hours playing Horizons 2: Forbidden West. I started that second play-through without completing the first. I did this with the first game. You see, Eloy needs power and skill and running after the main quest (something I erroneously did in the first game) will not do it. You need skill points and the game is large, really really large and when you start finding adversaries that are (on land) a lot bigger than you think you will be either running for your life or running for cover. Those who go meet the challenge head on are shredded. Yet I digress (or do I)?

The Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/feb/20/credit-suisse-secrets-leak-unmasks-criminals-fraudsters-corrupt-politicians) where we see ‘Credit Suisse leak unmasks criminals, fraudsters and corrupt politicians’. There Is one problem. You see I do not think that this is happening, the Guardian was a happy tool just to get the exclusive. So as we are given:

Massive leak reveals secret owners of £80bn held in Swiss bank
Whistleblower leaked bank’s data to expose ‘immoral’ secrecy laws
Clients included human trafficker and billionaire who ordered girlfriend’s murder
Vatican-owned account used to spend €350m in allegedly fraudulent investment
Scandal-hit Credit Suisse rejects allegations it may be ‘rogue bank’

You see, my issue is that just like the ICIJ Pandora papers farce, this is an orchestration. I cannot say by who, we can point towards the NSA or a likeminded player (GCHQ), but the setting is larger. The US and EU are close to bankrupt, they play a nice tune, but the musical instrument has not been tuned for too long. A debt surpassing $30,000,000,000,000 and the EU is set to be in debt for about €10,973,338,444,376. They need to do something and going after some specific people is a first need. You cannot overhaul finances until certain ‘progressive entrepreneurs’ (aka white collar criminals) are dealt with ad the courts take too long, the problem is two fold. In the first the ICIJ was all about tantrums and BS, not much real useful info. We saw the accusations here and there with added ‘No actual laws were broken’ additions and it was a farce from beginning to end. Basic intelligence gathering acts were ignored, basic dashboarding was cast aside, and after 304 messages I know it was a wash. It was all about the power towards a ‘tax the rich’ flame which was happily drowned in whatever they used. Now we see the scolding of Credit Suisse and there are two parts here: 

  1. In the first they are accusations, so there will be a time gap, not a short one either. But it will be a message to ALL other banks that certain people have had enough.
  2. We see “billionaire who ordered girlfriend’s murder”, which might be fine, but which of the 2,755 billionaires was it? Well, the article gives us “his Lebanese pop star girlfriend”, so it might not be that hard. 

The issue is not the article perse, it is “A massive leak from one of the world’s biggest private banks, Credit Suisse, has exposed the hidden wealth of clients involved in torture, drug trafficking, money laundering, corruption and other serious crimes. Details of accounts linked to 30,000 Credit Suisse clients all over the world are contained in the leak, which unmasks the beneficiaries of more than 100bn Swiss francs (£80bn) held in one of Switzerland’s best-known financial institutions.”

Let me take you through the numbers. There is not one employee that has access to the 30,000 accounts, so it is the CEO, CTO, CFO, or something like that. Do you think that they are the whistleblower? Nope? Neither do I! Then there is the IT, but Credit Suisse is global, so it we get back to the CTO. One IT person does not have this kind of access without getting caught. This level of data has all kinds of security. It needs to have it. Then there is the inside part Who is the drug trafficker? Who is the corrupt? Who is the torturer? This is not set into an account, it requires data aggregation, something a way to large computer can do but leakers tend to now have that access, without getting caught. And the Swiss laws are strict, massively strict so there is doubt on the stage of “held in one of Switzerland’s best-known financial institutions” as well. The levels of security and insight cannot come from a leaker, just like with the Pandora papers. I stated that from the beginning. This was a state operator and the NSA is the most likely culprit. The USA is in too much debt, it needs to release pressures and they are out of options. So when the ICIJ strikes out, we get this. 

I have worked in data for decades and I have had less then 5 instances where I had national levels of data access, but I was monitored all the time (as one does), one protects the data it has. And I was able to do my job and aid the people involved. In an age of data being currency, do you think this is some leak? An £80bn leak no less? Then there is “leak reveals secret owners of £80bn held in Swiss bank”, a bullshit header if ever there was one. You see Swiss bank laws are strict, very strict and have been for a very long time but someone wants access and a leak would never reveal that. Such information can only come from state players, players with aggregated data on a very large level and there is every indication that the dat did not come from the bank but from other sources who transferred the funds from one to the other. The setting of ‘Credit Suisse leak unmasks criminals, fraudsters and corrupt politicians’ debunked in mere minutes. It took me at least 4 times longer to type this all. And when we get one example where the article is so ‘huge’, we get “the leaked Credit Suisse data shows his accounts were left open until at least well into the last decade. At one point after he left Siemens, one account was worth 54m CHF (£24m). Seidel’s lawyer declined to say whether the accounts were his. He said his client had addressed all outstanding matters relating to his bribery offences and wished to move on with his life”, as well as “The lawyer did not respond to repeated invitations to explain the source of the 54m CHF. Siemens said it did not know about the money and that its review of its own cashflows shed no light on the account”, so all that space on what amounts to 0.03% of the entire amount. Just like the ICIJ, shortsighted and a waste of time. So we get repeated invitations to explain 0.03% of what is such a massive leak? Is anyone waking up yet? 

This is about something else, it always was and in this the Guardian is allowing themselves (yet again) to be the tool in all this. It is not rocket science and it took me minutes to debunk a setting that is intentionally being misrepresented by 5 writers, I did this all alone in less then an hour (including the writing), so what fairy tale will the newspapers (via a state actor) serve up next?

Charging in full frontal will get some state players shredded, so they decided on the Eloy solution, illuminate from the tall grass and stay out of sight, plenty of players eager to take that limelight.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 30, 2022 · 23:53

Accusatio et testimonio

That is the setting and I waited for a few hours. To be honest I had doubts when the news reached me via Saudi Arabia News. So I checked, Al Jazeera had it, ABC had it and i24 news had it. You know who did not have it? BBC, the Guardian, the Times, even the sanctimonious Washington Post. None of them had it and lets face it, there is nothing news about ‘2,000 children recruited by Yemen’s Houthis died fighting: UN’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/30/2000-children-recruited-by-yemens-houthis-died-fighting-un). Lets be clear this is not some accusation, this is a report by the United Nations which then gives us “A United Nations report found children aged between 10 and 17 years are being lured into fighting Yemen’s internationally recognised government” In this, do you still think I am kidding when I mentioned that stake holders are filtering the news that we are allowed to have? Of all sources, the BBC, the Guardian, the Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the list goes on regarding top tier newspapers who all basically forgot to mention it and we are likely to hear an ‘oops’ by some. This is what Saudi Arabia and the UAE faces an opponent using children and it is not for our eyes. It didn’t even make the Save the Children International news who gave us a week ago that three children were killed. Beat that with a charity fence. 

So this is what Al Jazeera gives us “The children are instructed to shout the Houthi slogan ‘death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews, victory to Islam’,” the four-member panel of experts said. “In one camp, children as young as 7 years of age were taught to clean weapons and evade rockets”, that is the reality that Saudi Arabia faces, that is the reality we face and these children will get hardened and more extreme and more militant as they get to 18, they will have more combat training then the average NATO soldier. That is the reality of a war that Houthi forces with Iranian support are bringing to our shores and the stakeholders do not want us informed, perhaps the have some golden joke to serve Iran, perhaps it is about the billions in oil revenue that end up in the hands of some middle man, but there is an agenda, there always is. And we can no longer afford that agenda, we need to pick a side, this war has been going on for almost 7.5 years and there is no end in sight and with the Houthi forces now relying on children there is no future for Yemen either. We could just bomb it into the stone age and be done with it. But that would imply we would have to do the same to Iran and Hezbollah. Iran is fine, we get rid of 85 million people and problems are solved. But what about Hezbollah? What about those 5 million people? When will it end? I tell you, when we give full and complete support to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, that is when we get a first clear victory and the beginning of the end becomes visible. We will also make sure that Iran is no longer welcome there. It was a clear path that has been staring us in the face for well over 4 years, but we took pride in grannies with their CAAT and ‘no weapons to Saudi Arabia’ banners and we thought the problem was gone. No it never was, we merely gave billions in sales to China and Russia and lost out there too. Now we have lost options and listening to media in denial of events does not help, listening to stakeholders does not help. A setting that has been clear for years, yet we were in denial. Why? Houthi drone bombings on Saudi civilian targets never made the news. And now you can see it for yourself, the large papers seem to silence a UN report. All whilst news tends to waste papers on any UN report even when no one cares, but 2000 children? Do you think we will care or will we not? I let you decide and check the time of WHEN these other papers give us the news, because after the fact is nice when it is a hiker getting lost, but a United Nation report on 2000 children being pushed into a war? How does that sit with you?

I will let you figure it out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

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

January 15, 2022 · 19:29

A woman’s voice

Something bothered me, it bothered me from the beginning, but I let it go. There are several important things going on in the world and this was not one of them, or was it? It was the Guardian that pushed me into action. The article ‘Hollywood stars back Emma Watson after Palestinian solidarity post’ gave me the view that is was essential to act, and believe it or not act is the central part of the whole story.

The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/13/hollywood-stars-back-emma-watson-after-palestinian-solidarity-post) gives us a few things. Now to be honest, for the most I tend to take the side of Israel, for several reasons. The setting was that Emma Watson showed an image, an image that gives us “a photograph of a pro-Palestinian protest with the banner “solidarity is a verb” written across it. It was accompanied with a quote about the meaning of solidarity from the intersectional feminist scholar Sara Ahmed.” I reckon that Emma Watson agreed and she posted the image. In the initial hours I saw responses and also the accusation of antisemitism and I thought nothing of it, I believed it to be an overreaction. In this, I also saw the tweets by Danny Danon and I believed he was wrong, he too overreacted, but I let it slide. Now that we see all these responses, I feel that it is important to respond. 

As I stated, in most cases I tend to side with Israel. Here there is a truth. The truth is simple “solidarity is a verb”, that is truth, it is a verb until it is followed by acts, commitment and actions. If you want to see that look in your history books on Poland in the 1985-1999 era, solidarity came from actions, until that is done, it is merely a verb. Yet all sources ignore the third side in all this. There is one side, there is the opposition and there is the photograph. You see the photograph is brilliant. It starts conversations,. It starts views and it does create opposition, yet nearly all ignored or overlooked the third party, didn’t you? We see the acts against a young lay, and let’s face it, she is only 382 months old. It is not an excuse, it is not negative, it merely is a fact, just like the fact that “solidarity is a verb”. And she identified with the verb, she identified with the thought. In this she is right and a lot of people are wrong. So it is good to see names like Susan Sarandon, Mark Ruffalo, Peter Capaldi, Charles Dance, Gael García Bernal, Jim Jarmusch, Maxine Peake, Viggo Mortensen and Steve Coogan standing with her. In this Danny Danon and Israeli officials did the wrong thing, perhaps Palestine was hoping for an overreaction, perhaps it was something else and in all this Miss Watson never uttered an anti-semite word and that needs to be seen and seen as soon as possible. And in all this we see a second failing. Did you pick up on it? The media merely gives us “the meaning of solidarity from the intersectional feminist scholar Sara Ahmed”. So what was the meaning? Why is it (as I personally see it) overlooked? And more important, who is Sara Ahmed? The Quote was “Solidarity does not assume that our struggles are the same struggles, or that our pain is the same pain, or that our hope is for the same future. Solidarity involves commitment, and work, as well as the recognition that even if we do not have the same feelings, or the same lives, or the same bodies, we do live on common ground.” Do you know where I got that from? Vogue Magazine! They gave a more complete story than the newspapers, how weird is that?

So as we wonder who is right and who is wrong. I gave my view, yet I will not deny that Palestine has a hard situation, in part Palestine created it, but the truth behind the setting is that “Solidarity involves commitment, and work” it is an absolute truth and I wonder all those voices screaming and parroting that Emma Watson is an anti-semite, who did their vetting, who did their investigation? I fear that this group is far too small and that should sadden us all. 

But there is also good news Emma Watson turned 382 months today, so she can celebrate her day in life, her month in life and she can do it holding her head up high, she never did anything wrong here. 

So solidarity is a verb, so is judgemental. Who thought it through and who considered that the photograph did what it needed to do, to get people talking. As I see it +15 points for Gryffindor.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, movies, Politics

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

January 11, 2022 · 17:08

Media in Limelight

That is the setting, is it time to put the media in the limelight? It started yesterday in Al Jazeera which was based on an article that came from the Wall Street Journal. The article (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/9/iran-likely-smuggling-weapons-to-yemen-confidential-report) gives us ‘Iran ‘likely’ smuggling weapons to Yemen: UN report’I got there over three years ago, with a little later, in December 16th 2019 when I wrote ‘Joke of 2019: United Nations’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/12/16/joke-of-2019-united-nations/), where we see the UN giving us in some delusional Tate of denial “The UN has reportedly so far been unable to confirm Iran was involved in drone and cruise missile attacks on two key Saudi oil facilities in September”, they were that much in denial, one could argue that the UN allowed itself to be steered clear of any evidence involving Iran and the media was happy to oblige. If you search for these elements in Western media you will find very little. The Wall Street Journal who gave us two days ago (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-navy-port-emerges-as-key-to-alleged-weapons-smuggling-to-yemen-u-n-report-says-11641651941) “Thousands of weapons seized by the U.S. along supply routes for Yemen’s Houthis likely originated from Jask in Iran’s southeast, according to a draft report” might be one of the first that takes a larger look at the acts of Iran, well, I have to say that it took them long enough. I have a three year head start on most of them as such I wonder which stakeholder is out in the cold now?

A stage most ignores for the longest time is now a hot potato. So we do hope that General Turki Al-Maliki, serving the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will get the support he has been entitled to for well over two years. And all this is before you realise that Arab News gave us (at https://youtu.be/6Ab-8bIHY90) the setting of what Saudi Arabia was getting done in Yemen. Now, I am willing to be skeptical and not one sided, but the media did not report on any of that did they? It would be fair to see opposition, there always is, yet that part is also missing. We see blunt debatable attacks by tools like Stephanie Kirchgaessner (the Guardian, Washington DC) and a few other tools, but that is the extent, this is one of the larger first articles that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in particular General Turki Al-Maliki has been rowing upstream for far too long all whilst the media shuts down any reporting on Iranian actions towards and in Yemen, why is that?

If there was opposition, disagreements on matters it would show, it always does, one side reports on knives being delivered, the other party will state that the manufacturers of stone knives are being pushed out of a job. This is life, but the shutdown on news regarding Iranian actions is another matter and the Wall Street Journal (as well as Al Jazeera) seemingly broke rank. And when we see the response in the WSJ “Iran’s mission at the U.N. said Iran doesn’t interfere in the conflict in Yemen, as a matter of policy. “Iran has not sold, exported, or transferred any arms, ammunition, or related equipment to Yemen in contravention of Security Council resolutions,” the Iranian mission said in an emailed statement.” We get the political side of the statement, yet the part where we see “thousands of weapons seized” tell a very different story. So whilst there will be twisting and turning for some time (which always happen) the one side that does not get to be in denial is the media, two sources? The media are all over each other whenever possible and Yemen is no exception. We need to consider the media and the irresponsible acts of keeping news from us. Keeping us in the dark on what Iran is doing, we need to set the limelight on the media and their stage of denial, it is that simple. When they all start doing their job, the job of some become more outspoken and we see a much larger wheel in motion, and perhaps the headline we saw in September 2021 ‘Iran Selling More Oil In 2021 But Middlemen Reap The Profit’, the setting is simple. In what universe does the middlemen reap the profits, close to all the profits? I wonder if the media will grace us with a list of names, yet I doubt that, the stakeholders on a few levels will not allow for that. This is of course personal speculation, yet consider the revenue that oil has and now we see that the alleged Iranian profits go somewhere else? Do you not think we need to know where they go? Do you think that the CIA, FBI (and many others) are not interested where billions in profits sailed to? The media is suddenly not interested?

If Toyota released another ISIS model, the media would be all over the design teams and asking them which of the members had middle eastern relatives. Now they are quiet? I do not think so! I believe that the Wall Street Journal (al Jazeera too) is exposing a little more than they bargained for and the call for exposing and illuminating the media in the limelight is the right call to make. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military

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

January 3, 2022 · 19:51

The virtual quarterback

We can consider me being the Monday morning quarterback, it would be fair to call me this. I have been for the longest time a champion of science, I believe that not unlike evidence in law, science is the cornerstone of all daily life decisions. So I tend to take sides with science for nearly all cases. Yet today, in opposition of a piece in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist) I take another side, the non-scientist setting. I oppose the views of Professor Mark Woolhouse. So feel free to oppose my views, which would be fair enough. But in all matters take a long hard look at some of the things we are handed here today. I believe that not unlike some wannabe journalists who wanted to cash in on Jamal Khashoggi with their fiction view of ‘Blood and Oil’ this professor might be trying to find the same rabbit in a different hat with ‘The Year the World Went Mad: A Scientific Memoir’.

So where do I oppose?
It starts with “I am afraid Gove’s statement was simply not true,” he says. “In fact, this is a very discriminatory virus. Some people are much more at risk from it than others. People over 75 are an astonishing 10,000 times more at risk than those who are under 15.” In March 2020 there was a lot we never knew. Do not forget that the disease was out for only 2-3 months, and it had not spread to the degree it has now. China had no answers, and the people who were responsible for calling this a pandemic did not do so. In addition, the media gave us “This might become a pandemic” all whilst the points of calling it a pandemic had already passed. I wrote about it on February 3rd 2020 in ‘Corona?  I Never touch the stuff!’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/02/03/corona-i-never-touch-the-stuff/), a month before we see given here. I already saw the pandemic threshold passed, yet most media were in denial with “This might become a pandemic” as such, it seems to me that Professor Mark Woolhouse will have to explain a few things. Then we get to “We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt” in this is resort to the blunt ‘Are you fucking kidding me?’ In the first there was a lot we did not know, and for the longest time there are still questions, so the response I see with “We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence” is something I would like to refer to as bullshit marketing. You see the first peak of daily deaths did not start until April 13th 2020, with 6916 dead people (aka the non-living). 

I found a table from April 2020 from New York. In this table we see 6839 died, but the interesting part is that 5151 cases had an underlying condition and in that case the older you get the higher the chance of an underlying condition, and in that up to 44 years old 312 died. Most with an underlying condition, but there was a lot not known in that setting. More important, there was no vaccine, there was no protection. The Pfizer solution was still in clinical trials in November 2020. And when you start looking at the facts as they were known, I believe that Mark Woolhouse is trimming his own trumpet for the sake of book-sales (a speculative view, but it is my view). 

Were mistakes made?
Yes, of course mistakes were made, they were made all over the world and with the US having an idiot as president in those days did not help much. There was a large void of knowledge and there was a large void of experience, so looking at the facts after the fact does not help much (apparently it might help a certain professor with a book to sell). And in all this the professor does not take into account the anti-lockdown idiots spreading the disease, the ignorant anti-vaxxers adding fuel to the fire and then the people who were ignorant of the way the disease spread going to relative, friends and so forth needing their social moment. 

And in London that is a large powder-keg waiting to explode and now that it is doing just that we see the blame game in effect. So consider the anti-lockdown protest, it only 10 people had it at that point, at least 1000 could have it 3 days later. And everyone remains in denial, oh boo hoo hoo!

So when we get to “the country should have put far more effort into protecting the vulnerable. Well over 30,000 people died of Covid-19 in Britain’s care homes. On average, each home got an extra £250,000 from the government to protect against the virus, he calculates. “Much more should have been spent on providing protection for care homes,” says Woolhouse, who also castigates the government for offering nothing more than a letter telling those shielding elderly parents and other vulnerable individuals in their own homes to take precautions.” Where is the time line? When did we know what we know now and that is before we add the complications of Alpha, Delta and Omicron. And with the last quote “By contrast, we spent almost nothing on protecting the vulnerable in the community. We should and could have invested in both suppression and protection. We effectively chose just one.”

In the first, the government could not afford both paths (slight speculation), there were too many unknown factors and with Omicron raging now, anti-vaxxer idiots and anti-lockdown dumbo’s, how can you protect a community? You can claim you can but stupid people will do whatever they feel like, the vulnerable be damned. That is how people tend to be. 

So this is my view on the matter and it is a rare event when I oppose a scientist, especially a professor, but here I feel it was needed. And I had a few more views concerning covid over that year and last year too. I kept it low, because I am not a medici (ha ha ha), yet the larger stage is also ignored in the story. The media was fear mongering all over the place and that too resulted in negative actions. There were several factors and I believe that too many factors were unknown, or untested for the longest of times. 

So, if you decide I am the Monday morning quarterback it is fine, I gave my reasoning and my views that go back to February 2020 when it was in the earliest stage. So I am not exactly the Monday morning quarterback, but I am definitely a virtual one. Consider the facts and consider the blah blah from Professor Mark Woolhouse and draw your own conclusions.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Science

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

December 21, 2021 · 20:38

When will people learn?

This is not the first time time that I go all out against a Guardian essay writer (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/20/un-backed-investigator-into-possible-yemen-war-crimes-targeted-by-spyware) So lets take you through this track of what I regard to be stupid bumbles. The title is fine ‘UN-backed investigator into possible Yemen war crimes targeted by spyware’, it is what is reported on, but the stage quickly changes with “a panel mandated by the UN to investigate possible war crimes – was targeted in August 2019, according to an analysis of his mobile phone by experts at Amnesty International and the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto.” Why is this important? Well we are not given an iota of evidence on how that was established. More important, we have heard of the experts of Citizen Lab, but who has heard of the experts at the UN? More important, why is this shown 2 years later (aka roughly 840 days)? So then we get to be off to the races. We now get the French Fairy tale division giving us “Jendoubi’s mobile number also appears on a leaked database at the heart of the Pegasus Project, an investigation into NSO by the Guardian and other media outlets, which was coordinated by Forbidden Stories, the French non-profit media group.” This is an issue as I had shown (source: Washington Post) in my story ‘Retry or Retrial?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/28/retry-or-retrial/) with ““reporters were able to identify more than 1,000 people spanning more than 50 countries through research and interviews on four continents: several Arab royal family members, at least 65 business executives, 85 human rights activists, 189 journalists, and more than 600 politicians and government officials — including cabinet ministers, diplomats, and military and security officers. The numbers of several heads of state and prime ministers also appeared on the list”, no evidence mind you, merely statement and boasting. I call it boast, because we see there that the Amnesty’s Security Lab examined 67 smartphones all whilst close to 50% had an inconclusive test. If this is 67, what about the other 49,933?” In this there was another side that no one considered. The list represented $400,000,000 in revenue and the NSO Group never had that, more important, none of these essay writers EVER published a dashboard showing where the 1,000 people were, there the other 9,000 were. If there is a phone list, there is a location and a dashboard on these numbers was never released, something I would do in the first few hours. 

Then we get the other clown (at the UN) with a clear hatred of Saudi Arabia “Agnes Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, who previously served as a UN special rapporteur, called the news of Jendoubi’s alleged targeting “shocking and unacceptable”” It is that much of a setting, the article goes longer into blah blah mode, but no evidence is ever given to us. And it is then that we see a pie in the face on the clowns involved. We get “It suggests further reprehensible evidence of the Saudi authorities’ utter disregard for international law, their willingness to do anything to maintain their impunity, and it demonstrates yet again a complete disrespect for the United Nations, multilateral instruments and human rights procedures.” And why do I state it like that? In the previous article we see “In this Shalev Hulio is right that he is “continuing to dispute that the list of more than 50,000 phone numbers had anything to do with NSO or Pegasus”, I would too and I found a lot of the disputable issues within an hour, I wonder how shortsighted the media was when they decided to reprint what the Washington Post gave them.” This does not mean that the NSO Group and Saudi Arabia are innocent, but it calls in question the evidence presented. The verge and the Washington Post had issues with that list and I found another issue that could have been verified, as such we see a Stephanie Kirchgaessner who in 3-4 articles reduced the Guardian to a mere level of the Daily Mail, what a lovely way to end 2021, perhaps its editor Katharine Viner might do well by internally vetting what is being published, and perhaps she is part of the setting. Let well, I never stated that Saudi Arabia was innocent, but the fact that the NSO Group cannot see WHO infected (if that was the case) the phone of Kamel Jendoubi’s mobile phone, what other matters did these essay writers ignore to get a nice little hate piece against Saudi Arabia?

When will people learn that evidence is where it is at and several sources have debated the validity and the correctness of that list, and in all those months, no. one decided to look into the list and give us all a dashboard, weird is it not? I am not stating that Shalev Hulio, or Saudi Arab ia is innocent, but there is no presented evidence that they are either, as such the Daily Mail 2 (the Guardian) has a lot of making up to do, but perhaps they are merely doing what politicians and stake holders are telling them to do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

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

December 11, 2021 · 23:53

Cross here to die

Yup it happens, there is a point in our lives when someone points at a road and states that death comes to those who cross here. I (with an uncanny sense of humour) would state that you cannot cross here, but that is me.

This all started with keeping the press accountable with what the Guardian gives us. It is (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/11/omicron-covid-variant-could-cause-75000-deaths-in-england-by-end-of-april-say-scientists) and is called ‘Omicron could cause 75,000 deaths in England by end of April, say scientists’. Let’s start by setting the proper page that the Guardian has done nothing wrong (as far as I can tell). In the second part, let’s look at the non-living rates that I see. One source gives us that at present 146,255 people in the UK stopped breathing (due to COVID). Then we see that this would up the ante by 50% and so far we are told that Omicron is a mild version, so someone is lying to us and the press should be all over this. 

The full text states “prevent Omicron causing anywhere between 25,000 to 75,000 deaths in England over the next five months, according to scientists advising the government”, My issue is that the current numbers are set to Feb 2020 – Dec 2021, so how could a mild version create up to 50% more non-living? OK, we see that it is 25K-75K, but that still does not make sense. This is fear mongering, or this is fear mongering as I personally see it. 

And there is more we get to see “a wave of infection is projected that could lead to a peak of more than 2,000 daily hospital admissions, with 175,000 hospital admissions and 24,700 deaths between 1 December this year and 30 April 2022.” And it is natural that these people hide behind ‘could lead to’, Yet the stage does not match. 175,000 admissions leading to 24,700, deaths. It goes against the numbers I have so far over a lot of nations and Omicron is stated (several sources) that it is a mild version that is more easily transmitted, yet not more deadly, so the numbers do not add up.

Why is the Guardian not all over this, why do we merely see “More follows …” at the end? I get that more will follow, but I think there is a large gap on the numbers the UK people have and saw and what this is now telling them, someone is spiking the drinks (not vetting speculative numbers). Now, I could miss something, I will happily agree to that, but the numbers do not make sense and I have been around intelligence numbers for decades. This does not add up. 

So I get it that some ‘covering’ is needed, but the ‘could lead to’ and ’could cause’ is like me stating “Cross here to die” I did remove the Warning Mines here! sign, but that negatively impacted a lovely photographic stretch of road. And let’s be honest, that sign might have been there too long in the first place, WW2 ended in 1945, a lifetime ago, almost two lifetimes ago.

On the other side, I get it, we might not know all about Omicron, but is informing us not the duty of the newspapers?  So what gives, because this setting is too surreal for words and after we got a lecture from a Nobel winner who states to us all “when lies become facts”, I reckon the news beacons better get there A game on, especially as Al Jazeera also gives us (just now) “Pegasus, the Israeli spyware tool exposed by journalists early this year, is now in trouble with  American authorities and big tech”. In the first, I do not think that the NSO group is innocent, yet no proper evidence has been presented and some newspapers have given us facts that are debatable in the very least on a few fronts (one of those newspapers was the Guardian), And in all this, the infector is yet to be proven and the NSO group is not the only player in that town and if a pervious quote applies that 34 out of 76 might have been infected (might is the operative word), we need to see a lot more and especially a lot better from the newspapers.

Getting people to cross a mine field is relatively easy when you remove the warning signs. And that is what we almost face, we are told that there is a minefield to the left and we need to cross to the right, that sounds nice, until you realise that the signs were moved and now we all get to stride through the boom boom field. 

2 Comments

Filed under Media, Science

Tagged as , , , ,