Tag Archives: the Guardian

December 3, 2019 · 14:45

The Sex Mess

To be honest, I am not sure where I stand, there are too many manipulations going back and forth and it seems that being ‘royal’ is held against a person in this case, so there is a lack of balance, in addition a yank facing the statement “accuser asks Britain to ‘stand beside her’” got to me, after a few days of bad vibes, I decided to take a long lasting look at this situation, knowing I might get part of it wrong, but then I was never afraid to be wong, merely worried to lack outspokenness. The fact that the media is milking all this for the maximum of coverage, especially unadulterated exploitation coverage is another reason to take a long look at this.

We get to the story (by Caroline Davies) and I take a look at the first statement that sets the fire “Giuffre, who alleges she had sex with Prince Andrew on three occasions in 2001 and 2002 when she was 17 years old, told Panorama she stood by her claims she was instructed to have sex with the royal by Ghislaine Maxwell“, from my point of view Ghislaine Maxwell is the first hurdle.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the overlooked element

We get to the case Virginia Roberts v. Maxwell (2015), A 2018 exposé by Julie K. Brown in the Miami Herald revealed Jane Doe 3 to be Virginia Giuffre, who in 1999 was known as Virginia Roberts. An article (the cut) gave us at this point “After Maxwell disputed Giuffre’s earlier statements to the press and called her a liar, Giuffre sued her for defamation. The two settled the case“, so here is already one part where Giuffre settled, how is that setting a stage where ‘Brittain stands beside her?‘ She settled and got a pay day most people will not get up to over a lifetime of paid income. On July 3rd (at https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/in-major-development-court-orders-unsealing-of-docs-related-to-alleged-epstein-sex-trafficking-ring/) we see “The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Wednesday ordered the unsealing of the summary judgment record of lawsuit against a woman accused of running a sex trafficking ring with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The impact of the news has been described as “potentially explosive,” given that the documents could shine sunlight on allegations against Epstein and his former partner and alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, plus unnamed individuals who argued against the unsealing of documents“, in itself it does not push for one side or the other side, merely the fact that what was agreed upon, a face of additional pushes, especially as the US allowed for a stage where Jeffrey Epstein was alled to commit suicide in a pace where he was to be watched makes for a different setting. The case is important as it links to a few elements. “Giuffre previously accused Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz of having sex with her while she was underage and under Epstein’s control“, we also see at this point “Dershowitz called Giuffre a “certified, complete, total liar” in a conversation with the Law & Crime Network’s Brian Ross in Dec. 2018. He said Giuffre’s allegations against him were a “complete and total fabrication.”” it is important as it sets the reliability of Virginia Giuffre to something approaching absolute zero, yet that is not how others will see it (and that is fair too).

As Vanity Fair gives us “the documents, for the first time, reveal the names of powerful men who Giuffre alleges Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with, as well as new details about Epstein’s relationships with Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Donald Trump. “A lot of important people are going to have a really bad weekend,” one person involved in the litigation told me. (Attorneys for Maxwell and Epstein did not respond to a request for comment.)” when we add “Giuffre alleged that from 1999 to 2002, she was used to perform sexual acts. She said she was just 16 when this began and claimed that other underage girls were used as well. According to the Miami Herald, Maxwell settled the case in 2017 for millions of dollars” there is a lack of clarity, the issue is not merely the lack of clarity, the issue becomes how often were deals struck where Giuffre was the recipient of millions according to some sources, the sources give the millions, but not in clarity where the funds ended up and it seems that the recipient is very much in question. This does not set HRH free from optional prosecution, it does however set a separate view on Virginia Giuffre, especially as she was requesting that ‘Brittain stands beside her?‘

In all this it is not HRH Prince Andrew that is on the judgement block, it is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell that is up for judgment. She is the first hurdle. Yet Virginia Giuffre becomes the second hurdle, that part is seen in the response ““I’m pleased that the truth will finally come out when these sealed documents are released. These ‘smoking gun’ emails and unpublished book manuscript will prove that I was deliberately framed for financial reasons and that my false accuser effectively admitted in writing that she never had sex with me,” Dershowitz said“, if that can be proven, we see her lacking as a reliable person, as well as one other part. 

Even as this becomes a much larger stage, that first hurdle, the stage that Virginia Giuffre accused Law Professor Dershowitz of will set a larger stage and will also ignores whatever else she quotes and makes promise of if this hurdle will show to be a false accusation by Virginia Giuffre. Any prosecutor who faces that point (if proven towards Professor Dershowitz) will face having to go to court against a member of the royal family whilst the claims of the accusations comes from a point of diminished reliability, good luck with that part of the equation, that is beside the point that the prosecutor will get additional demands on the setting of the stage should Professor Dershowitz be proven correct. Virginia Giuffre might end up in prison for a long time with nothing to show for it. more important, the stage is already one where the impact on HRH Prince Andrew is massive, as such whatever millions Virginia Giuffre had won in the past will all be up for grabs, I wonder if she’ll cry if that happens. 

No matter how we slice it, it is a mess from whatever side you look at it, in the end, certain individuals might have miscalculated on Epstein taking the self proclaimed hammer to his head, the mess is about to get a lot worse, the unsealing of one court file is showing to be the cause of it all, and it might not be the only one, there might be more up and coming.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 24, 2019 · 13:51

The fake promise

Even as the media relies on fake news to get things done, politicians rely on fake promises, that is visible in the elections in that, UK Labour thinks it can rally 3 million elderly votes and as such is makes that so called promise to ‘Labour pledges £58bn for women caught in pension trap‘ there is just one problem both sides whilst in government have spent too much, Labour lost (through stupidity) £11.2 billion on an IT system that never worked. The conservatives made different mistakes and both of them gutted social housing. The Guardian voiced it as “More than 3 million women who believe they have been left thousands of pounds out of pocket after steep increases to the state pension age are being promised compensation by Labour as part of a £58bn scheme designed to end a “historic injustice”” In addition they give us “Labour would introduce a universal scheme that would see the women affected given a maximum payment of £31,300, with an average payment of £15,380“, so here is the problem, first of all until they get elected they cannot make a guarantee, if they get into office they will have to deal with terms like ‘universal scheme‘ and with ‘the women affected‘, If they are setting apart £58 billion, they have more pronounced numbers (and better statements), would they not?

The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/23/labour-fifty-eight-billion-pound-pledge-women-pension-age-trap) comes hand in hand with (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/23/station-pension-age-women-labour-compensation), yet they all are forgetting about the fact that in a world with same incomes, also comes same laws and as such both genders have to retire at the same point, do they not? So as we see ‘The Tories stole my state pension when I was 60, now I want it back‘, in addition, the Tories stole nothing, both sides of the isle overspend by way too much and the political ruling administration had to sacrifice, people do not seem to get that money that is spent from a place where it does not exists, will have to come from a place where is optionally is, as you can see in the image (which Tejvan Pettinger uploaded on May 1st 2017) for those not completely aware of him, he is an Economics teacher (A Level students) at Greenes College and formerly with Cherwell College, Oxford.

He shows that during Labour reign, government spending close to doubled, can you name at least one place where that you as a person benefitted from that? I doubt you can, and that is part of the problem, austerity and government austerity was essential for well over 10 years, when Tories get back we see a rise, but a rise that is less than 1% per year and in an age of 3%-4% cost rise that is a pretty amazing result, yet Labour DOUBLED their government spending, so what did they spend it on? So when we see John McDonnell state “We’ll raise the money in the appropriate way” I wonder what he means because it is not an answer and the government coffers are empty, leave it to labour to give an empty statement like ‘We’ll raise the money in the appropriate way‘, we see a whole lot of that and no real answers. You did not actually think that labour has answers for the money they are ‘stately’ boasting to spend, are you?

One day earlier we see: (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/nov/22/unforgivable-jo-swinson-confronted-student-lib-dems-record-austerity-video) another attack, but one on the LibDems. Here we see Jo Swinson getting attacked with no option to respond, but there you have it, people are starving in Glasgow that is what I got out of it. The issue is not Jo Swinson, it is the attack and part of this is the Scottish political wing, for over 5 years the political wing has (seemingly mind you) not done enough to bolster its economy, now Scotland is part of the UK and that makes it also a UK need, yet in the all the political dealings we see that Scotland does not have its eggs in the same basket on the same route and that is a larger failing, some might watch “The party has tried, by portraying its leader, Jo Swinson, as a potential prime minister, although this is an unlikely possibility, given its position third in the polls“, but Labour is dealing with several issues and the LibDems are pushing for those results. the Anti-Semitic attacks on labour alone could cost them somewhere between 5%-10% of the votes, it might merely result in 15 seats, but those seats are coming straight from the Labour angle (and those people are more likely to swing towards the LibDems than the Tories, which is fair), and it is a very small step from third to second in that race, even as the Tories are bound to get the largest swing in votes, the LibDems are back and together with the Tories they are bound to get a few wins in for their party (Brexit not being one of them).

That will be the party Achilles heel, the entire Brexit mess is exasperated by large corporations to find delay on delay to maximise their profits in 2019-2020, too many CEO’s have too much riding on that and the quote “a slogan criticised for underestimating the amount of time and effort required to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU” is on the money, but the people are seemingly not asking whose money was that anyway? In all respects the Tories have a large advantage and Labour is more likely than not getting the hot breath of the LibDems on their heels, Labour will lose a few places to the Tories, but they will lose a whole lot to the LibDems and that changes the race considerably.

So, why my attack on Shadow chancellor John McDonnell? Jeremy Corbyn did the same thing last election, at that point he made promises towards nurses, doctors and police forces that he would never be able to keep, the coffers of Britannia are empty, they will remain on empty whilst the UK is part of the EU, in addition there are a whole range of issues playing and yes, there will be an end to those elements, but not with the EU dictating budgets, they are keeping budgets their state coffers cannot write and it forces them all to become Corporatocratic nations to the largest extend, that must be prevented in the UK. There is a reason that corporation fear monarchies, they fear them because a monarchy takes into consideration all lives, the poor as well, you merely have to look into the US to see their rights dwindle, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and those other nations see a much larger picture, one that does not fit the spreadsheet of a corporation, we much protect that part of life, even as other governments are willing to adjust their views to fit corporations to a much larger degree.

It is merely my point of view, but so far that view has shown to be correct. I’ll let you figure it out on your own terms; you are entitled to do that.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

November 20, 2019 · 12:09

Will the punishment fit the crime?

There are crimes out there, some are small, some are not called crimes, they are labelled as an ‘improper offense‘, these offenses are offenses, yet so small that the CPA might decide not to look into the matter.

The Guardian had an opinion piece on the Arms trade two days ago called ‘Is the government turning a deaf ear to arms deal bribes?‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/18/attorney-general-geoffrey-cox-gpt-arms-deal-corruption), now this is an article on bribery, one would consider it to be an improper act, optionally a crme, yet the facts do not bear this out. The setting is not that someone enriched themselves, no, they stated that they spend less than an addition 1%, almost 30% less than one percent to secure a contract: “to win a £2bn contract to provide communications and electronic warfare equipment to the Saudi national guard“, the so called former employee of GPT “Ian Foxley. When he was about to blow the whistle, he fled Saudi Arabia overnight fearing that his life was in danger“, the fact that we overlook ‘the fact that he was merely allegedly fearing that his life was in danger‘ is the first part, the fact that the bribery was there would be an issue for the Saudi Government to pursue (one would imagine), we see in the cold light of day that someone spend 1% extra to make sure that the order was accepted, OK, by law it would be an offense, it would be an ‘Improper offense‘, it might be a crime in Saudi Arabia as well, but they are seemingly not pursuing the matter are they? When we look at the black letter law we see that there is optionally a case to go after GPT Special Project Management, a UK-based subsidiary of the European aerospace group Airbus, yet in light of the thousands of cases not touched, and the fact that there is no actual victim here, should we pursue? Don’t get me wrong, corruption is nothing less than the proverbial blight on life, yet the EU gravy train is not stopped is it? Corporations are not being pursued in light of their activities to self-enrich themselves, are they? Yet there are a lot of eyes on anything accomplished in the Middle East, in this case in Saudi Arabia, I wonder if Ian Foxley would have shown the same candour if the buyer was the US, and they have the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. And there actually have been cases on that combination. Siemens (2008), Marubeni Corporation (2012), Biomet Inc. (2012), Goodyear (2015), and there have been plenty more, yet why is this one case important?

It is not seen immediate, or not until you take a longer look at the UK Bribery Act 2010, The BA 2010 received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010 and entered into force on 1 July 2011 in the UK, a guardian article spent a little time on it in 2013 (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/10/whistleblowers-snowden-truth-sets-free) there we see: “In 2010, Ian Foxley was working as the programme director for a British subsidiary of defence giant EADS on a £1.96bn contract to modernise the communications systems for the Saudi Arabian National Guard. When he came across evidence of corruption and bribery he fled the country and reported it to British officials“. There is an overlap, the UK Bribery Act 2010 was not part of law at that point. The act was not entered into law until 1st July 2011 in the UK, this does not make the act of Bribery all right, it merely states that an act that is privy to the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, and there we will learn that he agent might optionally be held to the dock, but it will not apply as the one bribed was allegedly part of Saudi Arabia, hence not part of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland. It is the little things that make life satisfying, and the Guardian hiding behind “The delay in making a decision speaks to a deep malaise: suggesting that Britain is simply unwilling to prosecute major companies that are accused of paying bribes to foreign politicians and officials” is both unfair and incorrect, an alleged event took place in the time when the law was being adjusted, is it not interesting on how this one case, a case that should be in the hands of Saudi Arabia to consider prosecution (for the most) seems to get such attention, it seems that Anti-Muslim issues are rearing its ugly head, you see that statement is also alleged, yet I see no such news prosecution regarding Smith & Nephew paid US$22.2 million to the DOJ and SEC in 2012 regarding a deferred prosecution agreement. The idea of “possible improper payments to government-employed doctors” seems to hit people in general, but there is no real overwhelming amount of news there, is it? It seems to me that we are in a larger caser of ignorance when it comes to non-Muslim considerations, oh and that was in the US, how many prosecutions and investigations did Stephen and Nephew face in the UK? I am not telling, I am asking, the news does not seem to make mention of that.

There is also the case CAS-Global Ltd. and the Private Nigerian Coast Guard Fleet (at https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeals/cas-global-ltd-and-the-private-nigerian-coast-guard-fleet/), the Independent was seemingly the only paper taking a look at that (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/two-british-businessmen-arrested-on-suspicion-of-involvement-in-sale-of-naval-vessels-to-nigerian-9991217.html), as I see it, the Guardian might not be guilty, it does have a few explanations to hand out, it will seemingly lash out at Saudi Arabia, but not much beyond that, Nigeria is loving it, I wonder how Saudi Arabia feels about being singled out and let’s face it, I personally perceive the GPT issue what could be set as an ‘Improper Offense‘, so I leave it up to the powers that be to decide, that was Jeremy Wright, trying it again and having Geoffrey Cox decide on it is a little childish, but OK, such are the rules, yet no one is asking questions too loudly on the Nigerian private security company setting up some similar form of payment for services whilst this involved selling 6 Norwegian former naval vessels to a privately owned security firm? And why does it matter, because like me two British business subjects thought it would be lucrative to enter the arms dealer world. It is a whole different level is it not? Robe Evans and David Pegg did write a good piece, and it is an opinion piece and we are and should be asking questions, yet I wonder if the writer intended the questions that are on the mind are the ones he wanted us to have on the mind.

The fact that in this day and age, whilst the UK STILL has not figured out its tax laws on properly taxing corporations filling its pockets in the UK whilst paying so little tax, it should be regard as an insult, are given all the space they need and the laws we see enable them and seemingly set the stage where other cases are not ignored for a decade, all whilst that one case had no real UK victims. OK, I admit that this is the wrong direction to go, but there are cases with an abundance of UK victims that seemingly do not get the attention or the jurisprudence it deserves, should that not be a first for the UK?

It is just one part in all this that we should consider before we consider anything else. And when we compare the Norwegian Navel issue towards private companies and one deal going towards the Saudi Government, where was our focus? That is before we see the elements in the Smith & Nephew deal, so they paid for it in the US, yet how much investigations was done regarding their actions in the UK?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

November 11, 2019 · 12:57

The deal

There is a deal out there, at least in the UK. There are all kind of deals out there, the consideration is all in the eye of the beholder, yet what is the deal?

The independent has a few views, the first one is ‘Labour and the Tories are both desperate for a taxpayer-funded spending spree – I don’t trust either of them‘ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/labour-conservatives-general-election-spending-plans-economy-a9195736.html), yet its by-line has an interesting thought ‘makes me wonder who is actually monitoring the books? Who is in charge of the economy?‘ Yet that is he issue and it has been n issue for close to a decade. Another article is focussing on ‘Which chancellor would you prefer to ruin your life? Sajid Javid or John McDonnell?‘ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sajid-javid-john-mcdonnell-general-election-chancellor-brexit-labour-a9192161.html), yet in the guardian we see: ‘Labour derides £1.2tn Tory costing claims as ‘work of fiction’‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/10/labour-derides-12tn-tory-costing-claims-as-work-of-fiction-corbyn) there is a larger issue at play, there is no doubt that both sides have parts that make sense, yet both are as the Guardian states ‘Both parties have promised significant increases in public investment, funded by government borrowing‘, this is however not a great time.

The dangers that are out there is the fact that Austerity is a path that is slow and cannot be fast, there is still a decade of austerity at the very minimum and this spending spree will add half a decade. The Guardian also gives us “The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said the Conservatives’ investment plans would amount to an extra £20bn a year, and Labour’s to £55bn a year” whilst tempering this with “Javid declined to say whether the Conservatives would implement promises made by Boris Johnson during his campaign to become leader, which included an increase in the threshold for higher-rate tax to £80,000 a year“, the problem with that part can be seen through the numbers giving by the government (at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2017), and that is merely two years ago, so when we look at the chart, how much of that collected money will give any kind of relief towards austerity?

The problem is that the people are sick and tired of austerity, but that was going to be the controlling majority to deal with debt, we can call it ‘austerity’ or we can call it ‘debt control’ the UK cannot continue the spending it had done for the longest case, not if they do not want to be vassals of banks, and the problem is that the largest collection of banks are those out of the UK, the only way is to fall below that spending spree and that is not a popular solution to listen to. Yet the numbers are clear and I get to laugh out loud for almost a year as Labour made these promises whilst the budget just didn’t allow for it, and the funnier part was that the proper taxation was key, not merely the richer people all people and more important corporations, yet Labour did not really give any of us the view that corporations were to properly taxed, were they? And the one chart I gave you shows that taxing the right will not give us anywhere near the funds required, so why is Labour connecting to its members with fairy tales and a conundrum of stories that could be minimised to a level that gives them the reality of a magical roundabout (the one with Eric Thompson doing the narration). The situation is that bad and we are just not catching on, why is that?

In that case the Libdems get closest to it by “The Liberal Democrats’ central spending pledge is a radical increase in childcare, which they said would be free for all working parents from when their child turns nine months old, at a cost of almost £15bn a year. They said they would fund it by reversing corporation tax cuts and increasing capital gains tax“, I wonder how much you can tax capital gains tax, and I have questions on how you will ‘reversing corporation tax cuts‘ but they do have the right idea in part, as I see it ‘reversing corporation tax cuts‘ is the better stage, and what do you think will happen? Apple will suddenly decide to reduce new locations from 15 to 10 (no great loss there) and others will follow suit, when the going is less profitable they will all vacate towards ‘bonus share’ percentages and all of it out of the UK, I personally believe that it is time to stop giving into the need of corporations, but that is just me. And the most important part remains, you cannot do any of the spending until taxation is clearly established, All parties need to learn that inescapable truth, because it is already too late for alternatives, the UK, the US, Japan and the EU have been playing the spend card for too long and whilst collections have been delayed and outstanding the world has no reserves left, this generation is the first one handing out money that was means for the grandchildren, and we all let them do it. And whilst we read ‘Javid has adopted a considerably more relaxed approach to balancing the books‘ with empty persuasion we forget that they already ended up spending the money that was meant for our children and now they are busy spending the funds meant for the grandchildren and I wonder what excuse they will use to let that continue?

There is a larger inequality and that inequality is not addressed, why is that?

And when it comes to excuses “The Brexit minister Kwasi Kwarteng also sought to defend the Conservatives’ calculations on Sunday, but refused to give an equivalent for his own party’s spending plans. “I’m not going to bandy around figures,”” The question is what is worse, not being into the act of bandy, or giving us fairy tale figures? I honestly cannot decide, omission or denial, both seem to be keeping the voters away from having a judged informed decision and as far as I can tell, none have any idea of where they will get the money from to fund whatever they need to get elected. At present the UK has a debt that amounts to 86% of GDP, whilst Germany has one that is a mere 62% of GDP, now there is an additional side, Germany has a much larger GDP as they are supplying for the need of many, the UK does not have that option, As such it amounts to £2.265 trillion and that amount grows well over £5,000 per second, as such the debt might seem a mere £62,500 per taxpayer, but when we look at a debt of £36,400 per citizen do you think I was kidding when we are currently spending the money that was meant for the grandchildren? With a debt of £2.265 trillion, the interest cannot be below £225 billion a year, so when you look at the total collected taxation, did you think that the previous chart gets anywhere near that amount? Oh and for Germany (in comparison) €1,990 trillion Euro, yet their debt is diminishing, it has been that case from 2010 onward when it was at €2.035 trillion Euro. Germany is ahead of the UK there, and for now it might be €48,000 per taxpayer and €24,000 per person they are merely seemingly in a worse place, yet their total debt is still going down every second, the UK debt is still increasing and until that comes around the UK has no cause for cheering or for some debatable spending spree.

The rich cannot fill that gap, anyone who says differently is lying to you, it is time to fill the gaps, reversion tax gaps is one part and making corporations accountable for whatever scheme they have next is another part, it is time to let corporations pay for their mistakes, as we need to hold the ruling parties accountable, the clear path seen is the fact that whatever is available for your grandchildren is diminishing and your vote is a clear path in stopping that. So make sure you follow the right party, I’ll let you figure out who that is.

Oh and one small consideration, when the entire EU, the UK, the US and Japan, Russia and China all have debts in the trillions, where do you believe the wealth of the world is?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

November 8, 2019 · 12:22

When you get played

Do you remember the feeling you get when you get played? Do you know of that inanimate feeling that gropes into your chest and rips out your heart? Well that is the feeling of getting played and the Iranians are getting exceedingly good at it. The Guardian article by Patrick Wintour, Diplomatic editor is off course really eager to aid a little by not informing his readers of the news we had 3 days earlier and I spoke about it at ‘The tradesman and the deal‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/11/05/the-tradesman-and-the-deal/), The information given there makes the entire ‘Growing calls in Iran to abandon nuclear treaty, ambassador warns‘ a little obsolete, moreover the statement by Hamid Baeidinejad giving us “it was government policy to remain in the treaty” whilst there were three transgression, beside the one where Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation told us that “enrichment is now up to 5kg per day, up from 450g less than 60 days earlier“, perhaps Patrick Wintour, Diplomatic editor could enlighten us how this part, a part that the Guardian informed its reader of is missing from his baker sale of facts. (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/07/growing-calls-in-iran-to-abandon-nuclear-treaty-ambassador-warns)

So when we see the part “Baeidinejad said the advocates of withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty asked why Iran should be submitting to UN atomic agency verification of its programme when other countries did not recognise Iran’s right under the treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” my response would be “Well Mr Baeidinejad, in the last 40 years Iran has shown no lack of aggression, it has shown no lack of restraint, your nation is a direct threat to the State of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia“, so are you good Mr Baeidinejad, or do you need more? I gather that Mr Baeidinejad would need to be a glutton for punishment if he wants me to continue and that is before we get the Iranian acts via Hezbollah in the mix.

Patrick seems to have an interesting view of diplomacy. I see that there is no other option but to go with Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State in his statement “It is now time for all nations to reject this regime’s nuclear extortion and take serious steps to increase pressure. Iran’s continued and numerous nuclear provocations demand such action” there are two reasons for this, the first is off course because Mike Pompeo is right, the second one is that this action would lower stress levels in both the State of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that this definite act will get a sum of three for the price of one, I remember a diplomatic reason as well, perhaps Patrick Wintour remembers that one (I can’t do all his diplomatic stuff, now can I).

There is optional a second benefit that we might get here, if we act in a demanding way from Iran, Hezbollah might get scared enough (it will make all kinds of claims) but in that setting, it will fear whatever the State of Israel throws at its borders, it will have a first need to fear, with Iran removed from acting, Hezbollah will fear what comes next and I believe that there is a first need to deal with that terrorist organisation. With the EU admitting: ‘EU admits preserving Iran nuclear deal ‘increasingly difficult’‘ the actions of the EU are becoming largely questionable, especially when we look at the damage that Iran can do with nuclear energy, their need to increase production of nuclear materials by 1000%, in light of all other elements give rise to a larger failing by the works and its diplomats to reign in the actions of Iran.

In my personal mind I believe that some diplomats have taken up roles of doubling or in some cases tripling their activities, isn’t it a perfect idea that a failure to control an element could be sold to both camps? And the EU has 27 camps to work; it must be heaven to be a diplomat under those conditions. Yet when Iran decides to use their materials even once, the consideration will be a lot larger than any diplomat can deal with. And there is the problem, Iran does not realise what they are playing with, merely that playing with those materials give them a seat at the grown up table, whilst millions have to accept a life of fear this situation to continue, that stage is over and it is high time that we recognise it.

I am willing to go one step further, any attack with nuclear material, no matter how it is done, should result in a nuclear attack on Iran, specifically Iranian oil reserves and Tehran, even if they have their excuses ready, even if they get Hezbollah to pull the trap on a small dirty bomb, we will be able to link the materials back, yet at that point some diplomat will be briefed to say that there was doubt on the materials used. At that point will you know that we have all been played! We will see evidence of being played before that, but that is the one non-undeniable act of getting played, I wonder how far some diplomats would be willing to play this game. You see that is the danger of a corporatocracy, its spreadsheets does not recognise the State of Israel, its spreadsheet is not loaded with food, it will think that there are always two food sources fish and beef, and when for Southern Europe fish is off the menu, their beef needs will increase, so more profit, that is the danger of a corporatocracy.

Consider the very last element, the idea that the article removed all mention of claims and considerations that we saw three days earlier and consider the fact that Iran has broken nuclear accords three times already and the EU is still not taking any actions, wonder about that part. Because we are running out of time and every day that we do not act, Iran gets to play another day, all whilst they increased production by 1000%, it is time to be less accommodating to Iran, and we need to make sure that they learn that any action against Israel of Saudi Arabia will be taken at the highest level and we will hit their oil reserves and Tehran, they left us no other option. When diplomats consider the conversation to be going forward when there is no forward momentum, or when they rely on old fashioned horse trading, we have a danger, you see, for the horse trade to continue, Iran would have to use nuclear materials and that is the one act we cannot allow, we are left with actions we would rather not consider and the diplomats call that plan B, but plan A is not working and whilst they remain in denial of the status of plan A, we get to live with the fear of Iran making a move, I believe that diplomacy has failed, it does not matter whether it was under orders of the Iranian military or the Iranian clergy, we get to push the button and leave Iran in a mess so that the next 5 generations also realise that there is an end to patience, and anyone considering the quote ‘But we are still talking to Iran, we are not there yet!‘ they need to realise that they became part of the problem and that they were never part of the solution.

Doesn’t it bite a little harder when diplomats are playing you?

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

November 7, 2019 · 10:24

A report from the messenger

I am happy to say, I am happy to report that I am not an expert, nothing of the sort, an expert I am in fields that are different, but in this I am not. I have watched a thousand or more movies, all shapes, all sizes and in many playhouses, in some that were called fleapits, then there were some nickelodeons, there were movie houses, playhouses and there were a Cineplex or two, often holding on the cinefex when going. Yes, I visited cinema’s from large to small, from Lantaren to Venster, from the original Cinerama where I saw the Cinerama edition of 2001, I have seen many places, yet I am not an expert, perhaps as close as one can get, yet I too was befuddled when Afua Hirsch (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/06/oscard-ban-nollywood-film-lionheart-oscarssowhite-nigerian-film) alerted me to a wicked situation. In Nollywood, where the Holly and Bolly are not found a movie was released. The movie Lionheart is using English; you know the version of American that was heard before July 4th, 1776. These American are sore winners are they not? she used the headline ‘An Oscars ban for a Nigerian film shows the Academy still doesn’t get it on race‘ to alert us to the situation.

Afua got me with one little part of her article: “Directed by and starring the Nollywood titan Genevieve Nnaji, it is a captivating look at family, class, sexism, politics and the texture of life in the Niger delta. It’s both very Nigerian and very relatable for audiences who know nothing about Nigeria” it was not the only part, but that part made me curious of the movie, Nigeria, a place famous for princes and princesses that have access to millions, and they are willing to share it if you can just hand over your bank details. However there is plenty of goods coming from Nigeria, movies was new to me (as far as I know), So when I was informed that “Yet Lionheart has just been disqualified because there is too much English in it” I woke up fast. Now we do know that the US is not really that literate, so for them The Queen’s English might be as far from Yankie Doodle Dandy as Spanish is and they have to make such waves to understand that, that the movie Lionheart “does feature the Igbo language, which millions of people in eastern Nigeria speak“, OK that was new to me, Well I knew that people in Nigeria had their own speak, i just (until now) did not know it was called Igbo. So it has two foreign languages for Americans. So when we see “And this legacy of empire, even though they were once part of it, is what some American institutions don’t seem able to comprehend” we get part of the fix, which is alarming for the movie maker of Lionheart, well, at least it will have a bigger chance at the Bafta this year, so it seems that Lionheart will “the American Academy expects films competing in its “international feature film” category to emphatically not be in English” no matter how much Queens English is in the movie. It does define the term #OscarsSoWhite in a bitter new definition; will the people like Helen Mirren and Simon Pegg unite making that concept into a comedy? Perhaps with Tom Cruise as the director trying to skate on both sides of the fence?

Let’s face it, Simon Pegg can make Paul an American (someone whispered to me that Tom Cruise played Paul in the movie bearing his character name), in that case Nolly can be an American too.

Yet in all seriousness

The quote “The American film establishment is clearly struggling to grasp the basic idea that there are Africans who speak English. Viewers get this: Nollywood box office revenues increased by 36% last year” is a decently first milestone in recognising that American standards are nothing to talk home about, In a stage where American values are given to the Oscars, yet for most movies America is merely 25% to a third of the revenue for most American movies whilst the rest comes from the larger screens all outside of the USA, the overly (or is that overtly) standard is set outside of a beach of values we need to consider movies to be in? I believe that Hollywood needs to reconsider its values, before Nolly and Bolly take Holly for a ride in a convertible and show her exactly where things are at.

It sounds foreboding, but it is not, in this age where games are taking the front of where movies are, the idea that Holly takes a bow and takes the list of settings where the grey areas are addressed. The idea that Hollywood has grey areas is just beyond believe, I mean what would we call Alien? A British, Non-American documentary of Space Exploration? I mean, let’s get real here. The games industry is about to dwarf movies in a major way, it is time for the people en mass to get on board and let’s face it, there is no saying how this goes in the future, so Nollywood could be a presence in gaming soon enough.

So today I am happy that I learned something today, Afua Hirsch taught me that Oscars are not a measurement we should be proud of, perhaps it is the year where stars and viewers decide that Bafta is the way to go when it comes to Cinematographical awards, so to all the Nollies in Wood, Welcome to the Bafta’s (well at least Lionheart).

I look forward to learn more of the Nollywood movies, should be fun after a bland year of American cinematography.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

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

November 6, 2019 · 12:16

The bigger the dick

How big a dick does one need to be? That is often part of any conversation that we tend to have in the common rooms, as well as all kinds of places where conversations are made (like water coolers), yet this week the biggest dick award will be won by Jacob Rees-Mogg with a landslide victory on his Grenfell remarks.

The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/too-late-rees-mogg-faces-furious-backlash-over-grenfell-apology-stormzy) gives us part of the responses, but it does not give us the reality of the entire Grenfell mess, the entire mess that he created with the statement “I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building. It just seems the common sense thing to do” leaves us with a bad taste, it gives the indication that the Fire brigade did not know what it was doing. I have given several reports on the views given in my stories, an important one is seen in ‘Under cover questions‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2017/06/23/under-cover-questions/), the state that we are in when we see the Reynobond PE leaflet should have placed initial questions, then we get the information that the Fire brigades give us, all that information clearly show us that the settings surrounding all this was about misinforming the fire brigades, as such the entire response by Jacob Rees-Mogg is out of place and out of bounds.

I wonder if Jacob Rees-Mogg will act out his persona by stating that common sense will require those involved in Grenfell in the KCTMO (Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation) should by common sense never ever be allowed in any tenant management organisation in the Commonwealth? The secure finding he has on ‘common sense’ should require him to do so. In the article I wrote called ‘Blame and culpability are not the same‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/09/28/blame-and-culpability-are-not-the-same/), there in that article I wrote “The revelations by John Sweeney (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrzcjUhf61w) give us even more (not at present, but at the initial point), it gives us that the first fire engine arrived in 4 minutes. The BBC gives a much better light and the one part that I stated in the beginning and still believe that is true, is that the Firefighters should have been made untouchable by the media until the inquiry is done. Even as we see the critical answers that BBC Newsnight received by Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union is an internal one and he is stating that certain things needed to be looked at” What I want to know is the remark by BBC at 00:39 of the video file where we hear ‘Firefighters have been banned from speaking to the media‘ Were any of them properly interviewed at the commission hearing? The BBC Newsnight piece is still a decent source of information, What everyone is overlooking is the fact that the fire went from inside to the outside, more importantly, the important part is seen and heard, the air in the building had become toxic, how would any kitchen appliance drawn for that part of the fire? This was known and to a larger extent questioned and Jacob Rees-Mogg should have known all this, it is out in the open, the fact that the LFB (London Fire Brigade) used the ‘Stay Put‘ command was based on intelligence that was false, that intelligence will be under scrutiny on several places, not merely the LFB, the video’s that we are shown show a very different part, this is not against the LFB, this is against the stupid outburst of Jacob Rees-Mogg who seemingly is all about not listening to the LFB.

The entire setting changes momentum when you see the Grenfell building after the fire, the cladding was painting the colour of charcoal all over the building, from the 5th floor upwards, if there is one issue that Jacob Rees-Mogg was able to leave behind with the millions of people living in London is distrust. Another source was given to the people in the shape of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUtjSspO_BU, that part shows a larger failing by several sources. That one minute footage is important, in the first we see the damage that a later firefighter brings and the utter disbelieve that we hear from those fireman. We do not know exactly when it was filmed, or what team is filming it, we merely see that there is a nightmare fire happening, all these clear pieces of evidence shows the utter stupidity of the statement by Jacob Rees-Mogg. In all this, my personal view was never heard. I mention it more than once. The tenant management organisation the covers Grenfell was part of the decision to select Reynobond PE, the leaflet, the information given out by THEM, makes the entire choice of Reynobond PE an unbelievable act, the fact that we see the long winded political choices are merely one of the unacceptable acts. The statement of Jacob Rees-Mogg should not be ignored, there is a larger issue at foot, it is not merely a scandal, it is the one defining act that makes all this a joke. It was shown in the Guardian (alas link missing) that the cladding was added to make the building more appeasing to those living around it, how did that work out? In addition the choice of Cladding that brought several questions to mind the moment I saw the leaflet (and I am not in that branch of work), the fact that the ones behind the refurbishment should face questions and scrutiny too. In finality there is the questions that are called to an article by the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/16/grenfell-tower-rebuke-right-rampant-inequality) by Jonathan Freedland, a columnist who added the story in the comment section is calling for other views too. The mention here of “the repeated warnings from residents that were either ignored or, astonishingly, greeted by threats of legal action” it all links to the KCTMO (Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation), the question should become was the refurbishment properly checked and in light of all this, how stupid was the response of Jacob Rees-Mogg, especially in the light of optional consideration that a building was intentionally wrapped in a fire accelerant, can we conclude that Jacob Rees-Mogg was slightly too stupid for any response on the matter?

Even as it has been a little over two years and the Grenfell Tower inquiry is still going on, the fact that the entire inquiry is set to take place over a long time, the continuation will commence somewhere next year. This all looks like a botched up job, with the BBC commenting on “It feels like certain people are being let off the hook, not being asked important questions. Now the first phase is finished. We don’t feel satisfied“, as well as “private companies and public authorities had answered “I don’t recall” a lot during the first phase of the inquiry” Which we get from the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-48189965) called ‘Grenfell Tower fire: Families criticise inquiry ‘amnesia’‘ it seems to me that the government has enough issues to look at, it did not need the stupidity of the response that Jacob Rees-Mogg was giving. I wonder if the question: “who attended the meeting and approved Reynobond PE for Grenfell towers“, I wonder how many members of KCTMO (as well as the builders) will survive what happens after that. From all the issues I like the leaflet quote the best “For retrofit projects less than 40 feet high” (Image to the left) and this was from their own website in June 2017, so can someone ask the question, who approved that cladding? We can suspect that there are all kinds of reasons that a supplier gives us the ‘Less than 40 ft. high‘ yet at that point I starts asking all kinds of questions, questions that have so far been missed out of, why is that? And in light of the height of Grenfell towers and the shortage of the comment by Jacob Rees-Mogg those answers better be good!

Mainly because someone was stupid enough to hang his political career by the light of ‘common sense’ and ignoring the LFB, these two do not go hand in hand, two years later, no end to an inquiry and the people are angry, they are indeed very angry and Jacob Rees-Mogg added fuel to those flames.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

November 5, 2019 · 11:20

The tradesman and the deal

Yes, we all have moments where a deal didn’t sound great, but the way it was brought was essential when the deal was there ready to be signed, the deal was accepted, not because of the deal, but the tradesman involved had brought it in such a way that the deal sounded too great to pass up. We have seen several of these events in the past, it is the literal event where the numbers do not add up when the analyst brings the ‘good’ news, but the diplomat was able to swing it to the direct event where all were looking forward to the fringe benefits that this deal brought. That is how I saw the Nuclear Deal, and one day after April 1st, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was ready for signatures on April 2nd 2015. Now that the deal is up in smoke we look towards the people setting up the deal, but they are no longer there, there is merely the JCPOA and the Iranian party has decided to walk away from it, already in a stage where several parts have been transgressed upon, but diplomats state “be not afraid, we are on top of it, the injunction is minor” (in various publications in the last 3 months), meanwhile Iran has announced (or was that a promise or a threat) that they are about the increase tenfold the Uranium enrichment process. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation has made the statement that enrichment is now up to 5kg per day, up from 450g less than 60 days earlier, also , the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/irans-production-of-enriched-uranium-rises-tenfold-in-two-months) gives us “It is not clear how the European Union will react to the latest step, but so far the EU has not put the whole nuclear agreement into review, which would be the first move towards its suspension and possible collapse“, the diplomats are not home, they are out and about on a golf course, on a sabbatical and on long term travels where they are not to be reached, no one wants to touch the toxic agreement, no one wants their nae connected to this, it is the deal that is bringing direct danger to the State of Israel and to the safety of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so whilst Anna Ahronheim gives us in the Jerusalem Post ‘EU Parliament Members: Support Israel In Fight Against Hezbollah And Iran‘, we seemingly forget that the term ‘EU parliamentary‘ is transient and above all, the 8-person delegation (four MEPs and four European Parliament policy advisers) are close to a joke, 4 MEP doubled by policy advisors are out and about stating (well sort of) ‘We support you against Iran‘, you see 4 out of 751 MEP’s is not much, did they bring the combined voices of 442 coalition members? I do not think so! You see the EU needs to look important, so they keep their options open with Iran and the problem here is that the moment Iran acts with their enriched Uranium, the EU is less than likely to do anything, Iran has oil and the EU needs it, the chance of Iran acting out against Israel is a lot higher than Iran acting out against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the chances of Israel being a first strike victim just went up tenfold. The same can be said for the article by Yonah Jeremy Bob, also in the Jerusalem Post, there we see ‘Iran-Us-Israel’s 40 Years Of Hostility With No End In Sight – Analysis‘, a definite truth, but here too it is all about hostilities. And the quote “One would think the US’s greatest hostility would be for a country that killed 58,000 of its soldiers and that Israel’s greatest hostility would be for a country that killed more than 2,500 of its soldiers in a single war“, but that is not where its at. And he danger is perfectly voiced in one paragraph: “Ironically, 40 years later, it is Iran that is the lasting threat against Israel as many of the moderate Sunni Arab countries are trying to find ways to live a stable coexistence with Israel, even if there is not yet formal peace with some of them” and that is where the danger lies. The two quotes ‘to find ways to live a stable coexistence with Israel‘, as well as ‘even if there is not yet formal peace‘ these two events are the heart of the matter, Iran is not interested in peace with Israel, Rouhani might be president, but he does not represent the Iranian Clergy or the Iranian military, they both merely allow Rouhani to be where he is and they both want to finish off Israel, and remove the power that KSA has, in that order, as such events are required and Iran is on track with it as Uranium enrichment is now allowed by the EU and the US is nowhere to be seen, merely in a stage where they think that more economic sanctions work, in an age where the half time of security is far below the half time of Uranium, and Iran has its targets set. And ever after the first strike on Israel there is EVERY CHANCE that the EU will not harshly react against Iran, they are knowingly selling Israel down the drain to ensure Middle Eastern Oil agreements with ALL OPEC nations, I wonder when the people will figure out that the EU is nothing more than a sheep’s rug that is not being used, it is merely there to give the large corporations the stick they need to deal with individual European nations, it is the result of becoming a corporatocracy.

The corporatocracy wants to find some level of solution, but then we are shown “Europe has made promises to find ways to circumvent the US sanctions“, it was the latest in folly’s, all doomed to fail, corporatocracy on one side, ego on the other, did you actually think that there will be a solution? Even as we see ‘French president Emmanuel Macron’s efforts to set up talks between Iran and the US to break the impasse‘ in the meanwhile the dangers are growing to dangerous levels, because of the Iranian acts, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no options but to find an equal stick to work with and that is where the Russian and Chinese connections become important to the KSA, one of them has to hand over the technology and that will be the beginning of the end of the EU, because the most prevalent of all reasons are ignored, Israel might seem far away, but they are at the Mediterranean, and any explosion there will give particles all over that sea, optionally directly endangering Cyprus meaning that the radiation is already on European soil, in addition to that Turkey will see the impact and the SE of the Mediterranean will optionally become uninhabitable or fishable.

Yes, that is the direct impact we are looking at and the corporatocratic security that the EU relies on will now be a feigned form of apologies and when the Diplomats wake up it will be too late. That is the direct danger we face and at that point the people get to rely on denials from politicians who proclaim to be working for them. Good luck with that!

We can argue about the validity of the JCPOA and hat nuclear deal, but the direct show-able danger is that Iran has increased its nuclear actions by 1000%, whilst there are no power plants requiring this, do you need a road map to figure it out?

If politicians do not hand over a template of actions within the next 48 hours, to time will have come for citizens to act and ensure that some level of quality of life continues, and for those who are in doubt of it, consider looking at your map, at any map that includes the Mediterranean. Israel is in the SE corner, with radiation having no other course to go but west, the tides will change where that radiation ends up, it includes Greece, Crete, Italy, Spain and the most expensive parts of France (Marseille) as well as Monaco, It will take a while for radiation to move through the waters to those parts but once the radiation is in one part, there is no denying it, it will get to those parts as well. So how irradiated will you like your fish to be when you eat it? Perhaps you like your Paella to glow in the dark when you have dinner at 22:00 in Barcelona.

Feel free to think I am merely having a sense of humour, but that first explosion will be the instant that life in Southern Europe will end and the EU parliament is letting it happen, so what are their priorities? Where are their priorities?

As I personally see it the time to be nice to Iran is over, it has been for a while now and the idea to play ‘soft kitten’ games with someone who is rejoicing on their enrichment program to be 1000% of what it was 60 days ago is not the way to go.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics, Science

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

November 2, 2019 · 11:10

The side no one seriously looks at

There was an issue, in the Guardian voiced it less than three hours ago as: ‘WhatsApp ‘hack’ is serious rights violation, say alleged victims‘, yet in all this, in all the banter, in all the accusations, the one side not heard is the one not mentioned in any newspaper, why is that? (the article is at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/01/whatsapp-hack-is-serious-rights-violation-say-alleged-victims)

We all see: “More than a dozen pro-democracy activists, journalists and academics have spoken out after WhatsApp privately warned them they had allegedly been the victims of cyber-attacks designed to secretly infiltrate their mobile phones“, in equal measure we see “malware sold by NSO Group, an Israeli cyber weapons company” yet no one discusses the main frame of the mind. No one discusses the fact that WhatsApp got hacked, the fact that a software solution found the software hackable.

We see Facebook, WhatsApp, Pinter, Twitter and no one makes a larger leap on the How. How are these solutions so hackable? There is one voice in the article giving us “One referred to Facebook as “the world’s greatest privacy violator”” At this point you might think that it is merely a way to look at someone else, but it is not. These software vendors are all about sellable and resalable technologies, so they want to make a deal with large corporations who can mine that data to their hearts content, the problem is how to do it without the overbearing amount of oversight, neither side wants that, it would result in uneasy questions and questions that have answers that a lot of people would not want to work on until forced.

And how do you think that NSO technology, a company etched in cyber intelligence and software solutions to find counterintelligence loops would design a way to get into places like WhatsApp and Facebook?

  1. There is a need
  2. There is the opening
  3. Both one and two represent a massive amount of money.

It is that simple and whilst we all want to shout ‘foul, foul’ are we shouting at the right people?

Are we shouting at WhatsApp and Facebook for allowing these gaps to appear in their software? No we do not and we need to wake up. Did you learn nothing from Cambridge Analityca?

The movements of people is worth a lot of money, whilst we all seem hell bent in locking out governments, we open up to commercial enterprises like there is no tomorrow, like there is no hassle there, but that side is the largest hassle of all, they sell some form of access directly to insurances for ‘advertising’ to healthcare clinics for the same reason and they do not care how that knowledge is used. And there is no reason people forget that a company is often no more than its mission statement:  “People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them” The Facebook corporate vision statement in its direct form. There is no mention of data security, there is no need for data arbitration, and none of it is there. The same could be stated about WhatsApp “Our messages and calls are secured with end-to-end encryption, meaning that no third party including WhatsApp can read or listen to them. Behind every product decision is our desire to let people communicate anywhere in the world without barriers” there we see no security affix in regards to from who to who(m). And let’s be direct here the part ‘to let people communicate anywhere in the world without barriers‘ is quite sincere, there is no hiatus on KNOWING who is speaking to who, do they?

That are merely tow basic parts that are ignored and they are open and for sale, places like NSO technology fixed their views on getting to those parts of the equation for their customer. Basically Facebook and WhatsApp let them, that is the part you remain ignorant about and that is why it is happening again and again.

You did not think it was going to be easy did ya!

All these issues would fall away when the stage for secure apps would actually be secure, that is the one part that would stop a lot of this and with smaller apps it will happen, when the app comes to a size of distribution where a few hundred million users will be using it, the need for a secure app will be out in the open, well over a dozen of these apps are out in the open and there is not solution, not until that changes and if it were up to the politicians it will never change, because they need that data too.

So if you want a secure App, you will just have to stop using the one you have until they make a secure edition of the App, now there are a whole range of ideas on how that will be, for example that App will not be free, or in case of Facebook where data is their brainchild, they will figure something out, but until they do none of your data is allowed to be secure.

Doubt my words?

Consider that three programmers were at the foundation of NSO Technology Niv Carmi, Omri Lavie, and Shalev Hulio figured out what internal programmers clearly knew but did not stop to realise and these three founded software to combat terror and crime, Three programmers could see what the 150+ programmers could clearly see in the halls of Facebook and WhatsApp and now we see “the lawsuit described the alleged attacks as an “unmistakeable pattern of abuse” that violated US law” instead of the question: “How was this possible in the first place?”

The need to be able to answer that question will reside far and wide in the scope of software developers, it will reside far and wide in the heads of those using these solutions, but not as much in the heads of the developers or the politicians, they know what was there, they knew what was for sale. And in all this the brief reads “More than a dozen pro-democracy activists, journalists and academics have spoken out after WhatsApp privately warned them they had allegedly been the victims of cyber-attacks designed to secretly infiltrate their mobile phones” and no one wonders why there are no politicians on that list? Or perhaps they are the ‘academics’ in all this.

In all this and no one is asking the question ‘Why was the weakness there to begin with?‘ and in all this the entire how come that the pattern of abuse is the one violating US Law and the weakness in the software is not?

Consider that for a moment! #JustSaying

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 1, 2019 · 12:51

The pigs you feed with

There is a notion that is adamant in politics, it is the stage that whatever you do next, will whitewash you from actions you might have taken in the past, it is interesting to see the actions of a politician and now that he had moved on, the stench of a previous post still lingers. That is the consideration that David Javid, the chancellor of the exchequer had to face when trying to shake hands with Hugh Grant.

I found his response to the event “I recognised him and put my hand out and said, ‘Lovely to meet you’, and you know what he does? He refuses to shake my hand“. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/oct/31/hugh-grant-defends-himself-after-being-called-incredibly-rude-by-sajid-javid) actually has the nicest ring around it with this piece. So David, it is not the spin you give it with “I wonder if people like Hugh Grant think they are part of the elite and they look down on working class people no matter what station they reach in life” it is the consideration you created towards those victims as a cultural secretary. It is clear that David is not alone in the Hacked OFF accusations. with “Grant attacked the Daily Mail and Telegraph newspapers for failing to include his version of events in their news stories covering Javid’s accusation” we see a larger failing, it is the failing of politicians that refuse to see the light that the emanate and the light that they emanate when they take a political position, it will haunt them an at some point it will be the undoing of them.

And there is more of course, the tidbit “after his suspicions were raised that widespread phone hacking by British tabloids was conducted with the consent of the Tory government”, As a conservative, I take great pride in the fact that we need to stand by our actions, even the bad ones, the bad ones show us what acts of stupidity were the ones that will hold us back and the fact that the press can hack whatever they feel like to get the daily circulation up. There is a price that needs to get paid and the press and anyone stupid enough to hide behind ‘the people have a right to know’ claim to do whatever you please needs to be stopped, I had hoped that both sides of the isle had an illuminated showing of souls, but alas it was not meant to be, in light of all that Leveson illuminated and was sold short by the larger papers as well as the political parties need to learn the hard way, I feel strong in that regard and even as this means that we tighten our wrists to beams where we do not know how deep in the water they end up in, the knowledge that we set the waterline in a humane way that way is the only way to guarantee that these follies will never be allowed ever again.

Javid’s spin cycle goes nowhere when we consider “Hugh would like to point out that the victims in question were not celebrities. They were people with personal family tragedies who had been abused by sections of the press” as well as “the victims of press abuse [who] reported back that his attitude in the meeting was ‘borderline contemptuous’”, which in some way has the benefit of David having to deal with past exclamation and past rhetoric in another way as well. The highlight would have been if “I recognised him and put my hand out and said, ‘Lovely to meet you’, and you know what he does? He refuses to shake my hand” had somehow be changed into: “I recognised him and I remembered the treatment I gave him and the victims, I quickly turned to my left further and gave appraise to whomever I remembered from last week’s meeting and let him or her shine a little”, of course the second version would have created a nice ‘non-story’ item and that would have been fine, at the most the personal assistant to the chancellor of whatever borough would have gotten a little limelight, now he gets to deal with the contemptuous feelings of anyone that will talk to the press on how they were treated, so hacked off wins, the victims win and David Javid loses a little more with every statement they made.

Isn’t it great to know what you are doing?

I think it is, I think it is great all the time, but that is just me

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , ,