Tag Archives: the Guardian

December 12, 2024 · 17:44

Sheep to the slaughter

There was a view, I agreed but not for the same reasons. I agree that Brexit was needed but for different reasons. You see, I saw the EU corruption for what it was. A setting where banks had their own little club, the club of 22. And there we saw Mario Draghi was a welcomed sight. I was hesitant to see it for good. Even as Mark Carney had its own ideas, he was right. Brexit was the way and the way was going to be hard. Now we see the Guardian embraces the story ‘Majority of Brexit voters ‘would accept free movement’ to access single market’, the carrot for idiots. There was no free movement, there was merely what others would allow us to do and that free movement comes at a price. So as we are given “A majority of Britons who voted to leave the EU would now accept a return to free movement in exchange for access to the single market, according to a cross-Europe study that also found a reciprocal desire in member states for closer links with the UK.” Yes but at a price. Now that the ‘settings’ are reset, the stupidity of the EU opens up again. The EU was on the verge of collapse as they are in denial of the consequences. You see we are given “85% of the EU’s debt has been incurred since 2020” but the story was worse, much worse. The debt of the EU has been calculated at €14,300,832,000,000 it was that bad (still is), the breaking through Brexit made sure that the UK was no longer held to account to that debt. Now that the trolls and corrupt ‘friends’ of the Euro got their stories to account going on since 31 January 2020 they finally won and the reset is about to take place (the fact that the idiot Keir Starmer assisted in the matter was a great help to the EU). What is the matter? Well in part they are right, the UK benefits from the strength of the EU matters on one side, the opposing setting is also true. A family with 27 family members and I reckon that 6 or them are nothing less than a newer version of the village idiot. They have a voice, but they also were chomping at the bit to get access to the credit card of the EU and that is not a good thing. The second that the banks come in, the setting will be final. The Greeks are loving this. There is every chance that the Greeks will blow out their debt again. The reason is simple, they don’t have what it takes and they take what everyone else has. That was an I personally think is the remaining setting. They are not alone, but they were the most visible one in 2019. Now that stage will erupt again. The EU doesn’t have the checks and balances it needs to stop that level of idiocy. 

We are also given “The report found about half of Britons believed greater engagement with the EU was the best way to bolster the UK economy (50%), strengthen security (53%), effectively manage migration (58%), tackle climate change (48%), allow Ukraine to stand up to Russia (48%), and for Britain to stand up to the US (46%) and China (49%).” My issue becomes. What data? How was the data collected? When we see ‘effectively manage migration (58%)’ how many want to push their migration numbers to UK? How many are are anti China minded? As we are given ‘for Britain to stand up to China (49%)’, are they sure they meant ‘for Britain to stand up for China’ and in all this the new markers are presented and not given towards the Middle East. That becomes a nastier kettle of fish. In the end, when the tally is shaped there will be anger towards the media for not letting us know the truth. I reckon that at some point media moguls will go the way of Brian Thompson but now with a mere rope and a tree as support for their distrust of the media. We are almost at that tipping point and reversing Brexit will give us the stage in 12 months or less. At that point the finger pointing starts and the media will lose whatever support they had. As I personally see it, the largest issue is seen in the last paragraph. With: “The Brexit-era divisions have faded and both European and British citizens realise that they need each other to get safer. Governments now need to catch up with public opinion and offer an ambitious reset.” One side is the media “British citizens realise that they need each other to get safer” and this is largely because a false picture was given for years and as this is shown to be wrong, the people will go for the throat of the media. This is no longer the 90’s where the media had overwhelming powers. Now they are held to account and optionally with their lives. As for the ‘ambitious reset’ this is largely enabled by banks and their need for the reset of their credit cards. What comes next will be the stuff of nightmares. It won’t happen directly, it will be a soft landing, like landing in a pool of molten lead. Within a year the UK will get their new demands handed to them and that will be the game, the EU (Germany) will win and suddenly they will they will side with Russian demands. As such the Ukraine will suffer and the EU will suffer too. The Americans will hand Russia through the Republican Party. Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say the United States is providing too much support to Ukraine (42% vs. 13%) (source: Pew research Centre). And when that comes to blow, America will distance from the EU. It was too hard and they have too little cash left. A setting that was always come to pass. As such the anti-China sentiment was in favour of America, as they pushed their goods. So how long do you think that setting will last? In all this, the solution to embrace the Middle East and China was a larger option then anyone thinks. It gave the EU breathing space against Russia. Now the UK is in the mix and the only option (I believe they have) is to open the door to BRICS and China. It don’t think it is a good option, but it is better to see that then to see the new maps of 2040’s stating Netherlands Oblast (or more likely Holland Oblast). That danger is more and more real as America lets the Republican setting of “U.S. support for Ukraine” getting smothered to death.

As I personally see it, Europeans are leading themselves as lambs to the slaughter. What a disgusting end to the foundry of civilisation (1095 – 2040). 

Could I be wrong? I hope I am, but the wrong people got to speak at media events and I am keeping a list of media people who are leading the run towards the gallows. Like the Dutch writer Marga Minco who wrote Bitter herbs (1957). As the character in that book who through the personal inside of people decided who was handed to the devils and who went the way of angels. I reckon that not many media people are going the way of angels. And those howling that they merely viewed that the people had a right to know will see the digital age as the one serving them, not the people. There needs to be a tally, especially of the media.

Have a great day and if you are with the media, the gallows are down the lane to the left, overlooking the emptiness of the fields of bankruptcy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

December 11, 2024 · 16:59

Out of bounds

Is the setting we should enable. You see, there are. Few sides and many of them come from an unreliable media (which includes nearly ALL media). We are given ‘Jamal Khashoggi’s widow urges Starmer to raise husband’s murder at Saudi meeting’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/09/jamal-khashoggis-widow-urges-starmer-to-raise-husbands-at-saudi-meeting). You see, my issue (since the very beginning) has been that the data is unsubstantiated, lacks reliability and a few other settings. 

In the very first is that there is not now, nor has there been ever a body. Forensic evidence has been lacking since day one and in the clear setting (based on law) we can say that Jamal Khashoggi has been missing, but that is all. The media has been rife with all kinds of speculations based on grainy pictures. Pictures that could have been taken in the White House for all we know. Ever since it was on my radar, going back to 2020, I started the stages in ‘Demanding Dismissal’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/07/04/demanding-dismissal/) where I gave a report on the stages that I had an issue with. The larger debatable presented truths was debated by me in “[92] Turkish Intelligence assessed that he may have been dead within ten minutes after entering the Consulate. Here we are treated to ‘he may have been dead’, ‘may’ refers to speculation, not fact, the footnote gives us “The ten minutes reference is based on the fact that after ten minutes, Mr. Khashoggi voice was not heard”, this implies that Turkish Intelligence has 100% of the embassy bugged and wired, that is extremely doubtful on several levels.” I debate the issues set in the UN document and basically attack the UN for doing such a hatchet job on an attack against a monarchy that was seen in the document which I will attach at the bottom. As such the Guardian giving us “Jamal Khashoggi’s widow has urged Keir Starmer to raise her husband’s murder at his meeting with the Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.” Get’s my response of ‘What murder? What evidence can you present?’ You think I am joking, but I am not. More important, the document (from the United Nations under essay writer Agnes Calamard) gives the much larger setting (made by me) of “The report mentions ‘interrogation’ 4 times, yet these so called tapes on the torture/interrogation of Jamal Khashoggi. Who heard them? How were they forensically tested and who tested and seconded any report of these findings and optional facts?” The tapes which spiralled the non-logical media into flame driven and digital currency driven idiots. Up to now, 4 years later I have yet to see any report on the settings of the ‘interrogation tapes’ none of this was ever presented and the Turkish media (who flamed things out of proportions all by themself) has yet to present any kind of intelligence or mere forensic evidence of this media. 

As such I have an issue with that. I have less of an issue with “We look here to your country, to the UK and to the US and most western countries, with respect because you have justice and you care for democratic and human rights. Forgetting Jamal’s case does not align with the values of justice and democratic and human rights in your country.” It is her view on the matter. The setting that the so called transgressions happened in a foreign location in a foreign country, neither of them United Kingdom or United States makes it a nice statement, but that is all it is. Oh and by the way, should Keir Starmer open his mouth in that case, I will demand loudly that he also raises his voice for all the Turkish Journalists that have died in Turkish captivity. Not one but dozens of them. I get why Hanan Elatr Khashoggi raises the issue, but al far as I know at least one source stated that Jamal was with a 19 year old (now 25 year old) mistress on a location in Bora Bora. I cannot vouch for the quality of that intelligence, but there you have it and as far as I was able to tell, none of the media looked into that matter, either to debunk or verify that ‘setting’. As such, I can tell that the attacks should be seen as merely anti-Saudi rhetoric. 

As such as we see “The government said the project aimed to generate £250m of investment and was expected to create more than 1,000 skilled jobs in Greater Manchester.” And as I (personally) see it. 1000 skilled jobs versus one journalist no one cares about, the journalist loses. Is it that bland a situation? Yes, it is. Mainly because no valid evidence has ever been produced. The CIA report gave us “please explain to me how the United States has any actual evidence regarding the events in a foreign nation on a consulate that is another nations grounds? How was this evidence collected? Creating a mountain of non-substantial evidence is not really evidence, even as circumstantial evidence that is founded on probability will not hold water, even if the statement “officials have said they have high confidence“, they lost the credibility they had with a silver briefcase holding evidence on WMD in Iraq, you do remember that part, don’t you? (It was roughly 16 years ago)” If it was actual evidence, the CIA would not hand us “officials have said they have high confidence” it blands the taste of spices and merely gives us the burger with the taste of a drip-mat. And it is always nice that the Guardian (not the most reliable source on Saudi intel) is wrecking up the past with an article like this. I countered their (and other sources) forms of ‘evidence’ within an hour. And the UN essay involved helped immensely. It came from statements in the document like “officials have said they have high confidence”, “he may have been dead” as well as “Mr. Khashoggi had been injected with something, passed out, and taken alive from the Consulate in some box or container” shows massive levels of speculation. I can do that as I was on the other side of the Indian Ocean, they (as I see it) cannot. And should Keir Starmer put 4,000 British jobs valued at a quarter of a billion at risk for something that is highly speculative and placed out of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom from day one, he should be regarded as more stupid than anyone would hazard a guess on. Just my point of view and I get why Hanan Elatr Khashoggi takes that stage, but no one else will put their livelihood on the line. With the exception of those wanting the limelight for a useless cause (those people do exist), as such I see this article as one that should be out of bounds from the very start.

a_hrc_41_crp.1Download

It is what it is. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

November 21, 2024 · 23:10

One pond is not like the other

This happens. We are not always aware, but it pays off to check. It is an easy mistake to make in Europe and America, but there are rules and thinking that you are from a ‘free’ society does not mean you can ignore the rules another place has. As such we get to The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/20/london-18-year-old-arrested-in-dubai-for-sex-with-17-year-old). You see, there are strict rules in some places. Most of them involve drugs, criminal activities or sex. We are given “We really liked each other but she was secretive with her family because they were strict. My parents knew about our relationship but she couldn’t tell hers. She had to meet me without telling them it was to see a boy.” And there we see the first red flag. With “she was secretive with her family because they were strict” we get the problem. And with “Fakana was charged because the girl’s mother found their chats and pictures back in the UK.

It is understood the woman subsequently contacted police in Dubai and Fakana was arrested.” And with the premise of “Sex outside marriage is legal for tourists, but only if both parties are over 18.” We see an entire life getting squandered. I have no clear picture how the mother was about it all, but as she called the police in Dubai I can guess that she was not OK with it. And the bleeding heart stage of “Fakana’s family has called on the foreign secretary, David Lammy – their local MP – to intervene.” We get nothing. You see he broke the law and that is the real drive. The UAE sees crime and deals harshly with it. We can ‘break down’ the setting as much as we want and the Guardian does this in the byline with “Marcus Fakana could face two decades in jail for having sex with girl, also from London, while on holiday in UAE”, no the setting is much simpler. He had sex with an underage girl and the parents (at least the mother) of the girl are not OK with it. Don’t get me wrong, I was a teenager once (I think that was at the time of the Crusades) and I get the setting, but the law is the law. And he should be lucky. If he had smoked a joint afterwards he might hang in the real sense of the word. And he is lucky because the punishment in the UAE for rape of a minor is the firing squad. And if she maintains that she was not ready for that he gets to feel what many have felt before. That is the part we do not see here. 

There is an abundance of party timers and as long as they party in Europe they tend to be fine. When the age difference is low (like in this case) many places have the Romeo and Juliet law. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia (mostly Muslim countries) do not. So the ‘excuse’ “has since turned 18” will not work. She was a minor in the eyes of the law. As such the sentence “Detained in Dubai, which campaigns to help people it says have suffered injustice in the UAE” does not work. He broke the law and she was still a minor. All that beside the point that the UAE has strict laws regarding sex outside marriage. And that should have been the first issue for the parents of Marcus Fakana. It pays to know the minimum of local laws. And do not blame Islamic law. In North Carolina and Virginia Oral Sex is a Felony, and that is regardless of the marital status. So, rejoice his life could have been blown after he was blown. 

And the media is partly responsible for this mess (to a degree). The Independent gives us ‘Briton, 18, facing 20-year jail sentence in Dubai over holiday romance with 17-year-old girl’, no, he had sex with a minor. And the word minor is not given once in the article in the Independent. The Standard makes the same mistake. We are led to believe that it is so unfair. But the simplicity is that countries have laws and other countries have different laws and this is one law the parents should have made clear to their son. And as for the excuse ““The girl was just a few months younger than Marcus and he didn’t know that at the time,” said Radha Stirling, the chief executive of Detained in Dubai” I get that she has a job to do and with that the second excuse should not hold water either, it is “This is not something Dubai should be prosecuting.” Yes Dubai should. You see, she was a minor. Ignorance is not a valid defence. I personally believe that he should not serve 20 years, but there need to be consequences. The media handling of the issues is making that clear. Perhaps a month (at the most) and after that he becomes persona non grata. I reckon that he gets that in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and several other nations will deny him access to.

I am for the most a black letter law person. I do believe in the spirit of the law and for me (and many others) this is not a serious case, but for the parents of the girl it is. In islamic law the ‘spoiled’ woman is not a good one (sorry for that term). And it could have been prevented if Marcus would have been told of the laws of the land he visits. 

So I am willing to blame the parents more than Marcus, but in the end he must face the music.

Enjoy the day, it is almost Friday here

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Tourism

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

November 12, 2024 · 18:28

Short of brain, short of memory

As I see it, Georgina Rannard from the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2lvq4el5vo) needs a little education. It started my (somewhat) raging nature when I saw ‘Ultra-rich using jets like taxis, climate scientists warn’ I was ‘set off’ in a light of day that is somewhat darker then blue. You see there are around 24,270 private jets, two thirds are registered in the US and many of them, are corporate jets. You know these ‘scoundrels’ employed by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and alike. There is a fair amount of jets used by the ‘ultra-rich’ but the the numbers fade in to the corporate world. And she gets assistance from Prof Gossling (not the brightest professor in the land). I feel repetitive, as I wrote on December 10th 2020 in the article (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) where I wrote ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’, where Tim McGrath made equally mindless accusations. As I see it in 4 years they didn’t learn anything, they just used a new vessel to spout there nonsense. You see, the fallback in 2023, the 13th to be exact. I wrote ‘The Guardian just won’t learn’ I added a few details there, details that was available to the press for obvious reasons. There I wrote “ignoring the fact that over 15 years 41,000 flights a day have been added and we do not get to see how much pollution that brings” each year 1,000,000 were added bringing to the total of 41,000 flights a day, every day. At this time (as far as I was able to check) was the fact that per 2021 there were 151,435 daily flights in the air. All whilst in 2019 there were 106,849 flights. I think that the stupidity of Georgina Rannard and Prof Gossling is clearly shown here. In addition to this is the fact that these jet are a lot more fuel efficient. It is just another example where leftist idiots put a little more blame on the ‘ultra-rich’ and I have no hidden agenda. I will never be ultra-rich, I have no intent to being ultra rich. Just rich would do, rich enough to have a nice place to live in and a nice retirement, but I reckon I am no different than 80% of us who all share that same wish.

As such I have questions, how was this “The 46% increase in emissions by private jets is probably due to rising demand and the limitations on commercial travel caused by the Covid pandemic” determined? The 15,000,000 flights from 1995-2010 would diminish these numbers. The other side is that the ultra rich would not fly them all the time, so where did these two dodo’s get the numbers? Then we get “The group is estimated to comprise about 256,000 people, 0.003% of the global adult population, each owning an average of $123m (£95m), according to the scientists.” So are they all sharing the 24,270 private jets? Then we get “One travelled by private jet 169 times in 2023, emitting an estimated 2,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide – the equivalent of driving 571 petrol cars throughout the year.” So who was that? Was that a Google (or Microsoft or Shell) plane transporting staff members? There is an amount of data (possibly fictive) that we are exposed to, and one case in 24,270? How random is that? As such we get the statement “The scientists chose not to name individuals, making clear they did not wish to point the finger at any one person.” Makes sense, but it also makes there data debatable. Because if there was clear evidence (like a thousand planes) we would get a really nice sentiment. And in response to this, I get back to the previous article ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ from 2020 where we see that 50% of the environmental damage came from 147 facilities in Europe. 

The EEA report (also in that document) gives a clear perspective, as such are Georgina Rannard and Prof Gossling anything else but a joke? The EEA gave us a clear report that 147 facilities were responsible for 50% of the damage, so why aren’t the BBC and the Guardian digging into that? They had the report for over 4 years. The media had that report and decided to ignore the report. So how blatantly stupid (and optionally corrupt) are they? A simple question and it gets worse from there. How many empty planes are flying? You see 41,000 implies well over 100,000 people. How many non-tourists are flying? I was in a plane from Amsterdam international to Budapest (Hungary) and we had a 767 plane to ourselves. Less than 25 people were in that flight. How much damage was caused? I reckon that at least 10% of the flights could be cancelled. But then we get economic issues like reserved (but unused) seats come into play and that is the larger extent. You can’t have it both ways. And I think the BBC knows that. 

Sorry for the rant, but these leftists accusing dodo’s get the hairs in the back of my neck up and there is enough evidence to do just that at present. Enjoy your day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

October 9, 2024 · 01:07

When the credit card stops

That is the setting for the US of A. The BBC gives us ‘US debt would increase under Harris and soar under Trump – study’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce81g9593dro). We are given that there is basically no escape for America, I have articles going back to 2018 where I give sight of what is coming. Oh, and by the way at what point do you cancel someones credit card? We are given “Donald Trump’s campaign proposals would increase the US national debt by double the amount Kamala Harris’s would, according to a new analysis by a non-partisan group.” We are also given “Trump would add $7.5tn” now consider that the interest on this would be around 450 billion, just on the increase alone. Now consider that the total debt is 500% larger and now consider that the US economy needs to come up 2.25 Trillion EACH YEAR to deal with the interest alone and I saw that coming 5 years ago and the news media and these so called financial experts never saw this? I do not believe this. We were all told and presented a story. And they are about to lose whatever leeway they thought they could hang over us. The media was the tool some were able to use (with what I speculatively see) as stake holders to ‘bring’ the presentation. And the media seemingly was left in the dark, or were they?

The problem is that we cannot see or prove any of this. But consider that I saw this coming for over 5 years and I do NOT have an economic degree. What makes you think that I am more clever than these financial wizard in the media (CNN, BBC, WSJ, the Guardian) and many more? Do you really think that they made a miscalculation? They isn’t nickel and dime stuff, this is about 35 trillion dollars. How much sneaky bookkeeping is involved to put such an amount under the tables? This would require the cooperation of media, banks and governments. So when your retirement falls away, who will you blame? The media? The Banks? The Governments? Seems ludicrous, almost some crazy conspiracy. But consider the facts. Consider the evidence and the avoidance of the media to address certain economic facts. That is not some cooky setting, the evidence is out there on the internet. Consider all the media and consider what the media never gave us. I can tell you more, but it is time to consider what I am telling you here and make your own mind up. 

Now consider that the EU had six trillion euros in taxable revenue in 2022. Now we see that America is optionally about to increase its debt more that the taxable income of 27 countries and it does not raise an issue? Now we know that plenty of EU countries have a GDP that equals an apple and an egg. But together they should amount to a fair amount considering that these countries have a total population of 449.2 million, which is a lot more than America (about 34%). Now consider that people pay taxation, companies pay taxation as well. But the tax breaks are mostly for companies. As such I look at the people. There is a baseline that extremely roughly applies and when that baseline is applied the numbers do not match up as I personally see it and I have seen this setting for over 5 years and the media ignores it all. 

Could I be wrong?
Yes definitely, but overall certain numbers create levels of equilibrium and I see that these numbers aren’t here at the moment. And the media seeing these debt levels fail them could also be seen as optional evidence. So how does it work? It seems clear that the media can no longer be trusted (in my opinion). So how to get the numbers? I cannot give you my sources, so you are a little on your own in that regard.

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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

October 8, 2024 · 23:53

Making money

Yup, you can make money in three ways. You create it, you steal it, or you can make the government reimburse you. The third one is one that has its own risks. Yet the BBC informs us ‘Customers of failed crypto firm FTX set for refunds’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0qz3dg21vqo) Where we are given “Creditors of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX are poised to receive up to $16.5bn (£12.6bn) under a bankruptcy plan approved in the US on Monday.” And we get more with “Last year, former boss Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of stealing customer funds ahead of the collapse and later sentenced to 25 years in prison. The deal will allow former customers to recover a sum worth about 119% of what they had in their accounts at the time of bankruptcy, according to FTX.” As such it seems that these customers get 19% on top of what they had in their accounts. There are ups and downs. We are also given “Some have suggested the repayment in cash will not match the loss of crypto holdings that would be worth far more today had they not been stolen. The value of bitcoin has more than tripled since November 2022.” As such I would surmise that someone went shopping with an approximate 180% of the total of sums. As the outstanding bill was set to “$8bn in customer funds were reported missing, not including debts to investors and others. Mr Ray’s team has since recovered assets worth $14.7-$16.5bn” As such 8 billion was found missing, Roughly double was retrieved and these customers only get 119%? I think there is a stinky fishy smell coming from the realm of banks. They might small consolation that Sam Bankman-Fried is convicted to 9125 days in Hotel Sing-Sing, but that might be merely the impression some feel. You see, the larger premise might be that we are given “the approval of the plan was a “significant milestone” in the firm’s efforts to repay the money to people and firms in more than 200 jurisdictions around the world” but the underlying issue that the BBC seems to ‘ignore’ is that people like Elisabeth Holmes and Sam Bankman-Fried (aka SBM) are given way to much leeway. Holmes was given 11 years imprisonment, where the Guardian on May 8th gave us that her sentence was reduced by two years and four months before original date. As such her sentence is reduced by almost 20%, so what reductions is SBM looking forward to? If is is a similar 20%, he could be out by 2044 and if he plays nice (good behaviour) he might be out even sooner that that. As such we might surmise that crime pays nowadays. And the media will milk these two for whatever they can be milked for. 

Enjoy the day ahead of you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

October 1, 2024 · 19:11

Two words

I saw an article by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj31lpvnzl3o) where we are given ‘Netflix fails to get Baby Reindeer lawsuit dropped’ where we are given “The show, created by Richard Gadd, is billed as “a true story”, but certain key events, like the conviction for stalking, did not happen in real life, the judge concluded.” As we look at the ‘facts’ I got the idea that Netflix has a few more problems then they were ready for. Were they really ready for cutting the workforce? In 2023 we were given “The streaming giant said it was cutting 300 more jobs – roughly 4% of its workforce – mostly in the US, after axing 150 people in May” I wonder if one person was made redundant when that person could have given us the same solution that I had in mind and it would have saved them a court case. Instead of handing the viewer “a true story” when two words made the difference through “based on a true story” the word based hands the amounts of alleged inaccuracies towards creative writing and possibly makes the court case  thrown out and the defamation lawsuit falls flat. Now, I could be wrong here, but that I how I see it. In the meantime Netflix will optionally have a larger issue. When defamation becomes proven you will see dozens of involved people go over every movie that Netflix had on their channel for 2-5 years. Leave it to people to see their greed driven pupils draw attention towards that what could leave them loaded with cash. Perhaps a little skeptical, but that is where I am. You see if I could come up with the two words that could save Netflix a defamation case? Why didn’t Netflix come up with that.  But there is more, the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/sep/30/fiona-harvey-baby-reindeer-defamation-lawsuit-richard-gadd-netflix) gives us “the show was wrongly billed as a “true story” when Netflix “made no effort” to fact check Gadd’s story or disguise Harvey as the inspiration for Martha”. You see the fact check is another matter. I think that my suggestion could have prevented the case, but the fact check is another matter. I believe that any script writer could be ‘blamed’ for creative writing to give space towards super shrinking the alleged defamation case, but that is merely my point of view. So, what happens at Netflix? That is the question but that should require a lot more consideration on the structure of Netflix. To this part I raise the fact checking and the optional allotment of two words. And there  might be more issues in the weeds. For this I would need a lot more knowledge in the inner working of Netflix and my script(s) are meant for Dubai Media and the SBA (Al Arabiya in particular). So whilst the Guardian gives us “US district judge Gary Klausner noted that because the show’s episodes begin with the line “This is a true story”, it invited viewers to take the story as fact.” As such they didn’t need two more words, they merely needed to change the first two words and that was not done. As I see it, if I interpret the words by US district judge Gary Klausner correctly, my change would negate his observation, or so I believe.

How much would I have saved Netflix, and to be brazen, can I have a slice of that? It might be easier to ask Sergey Brin for $11,000,000 post taxation and a Canadian passport, but I don’t have his phone number. You see, even I am drawn in towards optional cash, but it doesn’t control me or make me greed driven. That is merely the smaller (and optionally more desperate) cluster of people.

Have a great day. We are all on the Wednesday clock. From Vancouver in the East through to Wellington in the west. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Stories

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

September 28, 2024 · 22:22

How I fall short

That is the stage, that is the setting. I do not know everything (too boring anyways) and even as I see how things develop and are optionally staged. The fact that I do not know everything gets in the way of some things. Now, I know very little about oil. It is a commodity everyone needs, it is a commodity only some countries have and the two biggest players in that field are Aramco and ADNOC, oil is black and it is needed for the production of petroleum. That’s about all I know. The current price is about $68 dollars per barrel. So when I saw ‘Oil price drops, and BP and Shell shares slide, as Saudi Arabia ‘prepares to abandon $100 crude target’’ I didn’t think too much of it. The story comes from the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/sep/26/european-reconstruction-bank-cuts-growth-forecasts-energy-ukraine-elon-musk-uk-investment-summit), there were more sources, but I am handing you this one. We get “Saudi Arabia is reportedly ready to abandon its unofficial price target of $100 a barrel for crude as it prepares to increase output” yet Oil&Gas journal gives us “Saudi Arabia is preparing to abandon its informal target of $100/bbl for crude oil as it plans to increase production, signalling the kingdom’s acceptance of a period of lower prices and intentions to take back market share, according to sources cited by the Financial Times”, now in my book the shortage of one commodity means prices go up. I do understand that any player will protect market share, as such I get the increase of product to protect your market share. That makes sense. And as such we see Saudi Arabia deciding an increase for about 1 million barrels per day as per December 2024. There are a few players on this field and I like the idea that the increase will make sure that Russia has less customers to get it from Russia is not happy. And as several media are giving us the goods, there is no other way for me than to agree with the setting. In overall there is still a larger concern I have. Oil is a commodity with a finite supply, so how much supply is there? I believe that the middle east has the bulk of it, but the finite session gives us the dangerous setting that at some point, the three countries with supply will be Russia, Iran and Venezuela. That is not a setting I want to wake up to, although at present it is highly unlikely that I will be around the morning we get that piece of news. In the meantime there is a larger issue at stake. How will Aramco increase its creation of oil with an additional 159,000,000 litres of that black fluid. You see everyone is looking at the end result and no one is looking at the how. What is required to that level of increase? I feel certain that it will require a lot more than one pump. It is the increase of 10% (near to that) and comes from 300 rigs. The simpleton in me sees this as an additional 30 rigs. It takes 18 months to five years to commission a rig, the construction timeline for an oil rig can vary significantly depending on several factors and that is if the oil comes from rigs. Saudi Arabia has one hundred oil and gas fields, so if it comes from there, other means are needed. The largest oil field is the Ghawar field. So how can you increase the production there? And is that the only place? We are so desperate for oil that the basic security is overlooked and there is at present Iran, Houthi forces and a few others who are very willing to hurt Saudi Arabia. So what more is needed, because when by November that increase is realised, some will take offence to this and that problem will possibly create all kinds of new problems. And we do not see enough information on that side of the equation.

And advice from me? Nope, I know next to nothing on that topic. I can merely see hurdles and optionally a personal belief that I see options, but that is not what the actual expert on the topic has. And the media? Solutions do not make their digital wallet fat, flames do that and in that view it is not a good idea to put flames close to oil, a mere personal view on the matter.

Have a great weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

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

September 25, 2024 · 21:13

Good News

Well, it is good news of a sort. The Guardian reported yesterday (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/23/violent-crime-murder-rate-fbi-2023) that ‘FBI confirms US murders declined in 2023, contrary to Republican claims’, it is here we get “Murder dropped by more than 11% in largest single-year decline in decades while rape and other crimes also fell”, as plenty of us consider the one nation that is mostly in decline (due to the Karen’s) it is nice that we see an article like this. We also get “Meanwhile, the broader category of violent crime nationwide decreased about 3%, said the data, which is audited and confirms earlier reporting from unaudited statistics”, as well as “the FBI said rape decreased by an estimated 9.4%, property crime dropped 2.4% and burglary fell by an estimated 7.6%”. Some say that it is nothing to write home about. The larger setting is that in a country as overloaded with 343,477,335 people both good and less so. These drops are nothing to be sneered at. I say hurrah to the police and FBI department on a national scale. I am still of the mind that criminals tend to find other ‘activities’ to fuel their need for greed and violence. What it is is anyone’s guess. In certain fields I tend to be a gloomy source of skepticism. And it is here that Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said: “Data drives policy, and without having a complete understanding of the problem, we cannot effectively address this significant surge in hate violence” OK, I will agree with that. Data tends to be the driving instigator in understanding certain crimes. It is also a little weird that hate violence would be the driving power against sexual assaults and burglaries. One does not optionally fuel the other side and as such I feel uncertain what to think. That is the other side of data. The lack of numbers does not fuel the understanding into another side. It is not that we can state with any kind of ‘comprehension’ that (2022) 16 sexual assaults + 84 burglaries = 14 sexual assaults + 58 burglaries + 28 hate crimes (2023) it just presumptuously does not work that way. But in the end crime went down to some extent and for that we can say ‘hurray ye police departments’ and ‘hurray ye FBI’. We then get ““Our administration has improved and expanded background checks, announced the single largest investment in youth mental health in history, and been an unprecedented resource to states, cities, and local communities,” said Kamala Harris” I am less convinced here. I am not debating the soul and spirit of the thought, there is a larger stage to consider. I wrote a few years ago that the ATF is staggeringly underfunded and for the longest time there was no head at the organisation. There was a lack of IT funds and all kinds of settings that sets the ATF with decades of lack of innovations at their disposal. In addition, last year the WBUR (in 2023) gave its audience ‘Does the man enforcing the country’s gun laws have the tools to do the job?’ I had raised that amendment issue a few years earlier. They gave us “ATF protects the public from crimes involving firearms, explosives, arson, and the diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. Regulates lawful commerce in firearms and explosives, and provides worldwide support to law enforcement, public safety, and industry partners.” All whilst the gun lobby does everything to make things harder for the ATF. And all whilst all the Tech biggies (Amazon with AWS, Microsoft with Azure and Google with Gemini) have lacked in assisting the ATF in ways that work. I am not placing blame in any of those three, but the lack of innovation in IT power in the ATF is staggering. And in that setting the FBI and the local police forces need to do their work. Weird is it not? Then in 2020 we see ‘Rethinking ATF’s Budget To Prioritise Effective Gun Violence Prevention’ apart from the fact that the ATF was without a permanent director for seven years the wondering setting by Kamala Harris with “Our administration has improved and expanded background checks” but I have issues with the statement. I will fully agree with the statement that it was true, but consider a car in 2022 when it was going at a speed of 23 mph, the fact that it now does 43 mph makes the statement true, but when we consider that the fact that the ATF is to be seen as The Tiger Brigades (1974) where the officers relied on something not dissimilar of the Ford model T, the improvements would be impressive all whilst the criminals out there relied on their Lamborghini Countach LP400 (179 mph), you do see that the police has absolutely no way of winning. When we realise this a lot more could be done, but political players relying on the gun lobby donations are o so willing to throw a clog in the wheels (the origin of the expression saboteur) and the larger issue is not that America needs to stop crime. It is important that they are gaining access to the tools that allows them to do their job.

So I am not attacking the good news we were given, but the fact that the truth is that certain organisations were supposed to do their job with one hand on their back. The lacking funds for infrastructure does not help I reckon. 

All reasons for applauding the local police departments and the FBI for getting some of the work done. So to all involved: “Well Done!”

I am now pondering a thought I had yesterday and a larger premise. Not sure yet what to do, but it is a consideration to behold. And now, with my eyes on the Scotia bank on Yonge street (Toronto) I will sign off and enjoy a glass of ice tea.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Politics, Science

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

September 16, 2024 · 16:36

What is the colour of cowardice?

That is seemingly the question. We are given by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3y79llndo) where the headline gives us ‘TikTok to begin appeal against being sold or banned in US’ with the added text “TikTok will start making its case on Monday against a law that will see it banned in the US unless its Chinese owner ByteDance sells it within nine months.” I don’t really have a voice in this. I do not use TikTok, I don’t have the app. I use YouTube and YouTube shorts and that fits me just fine. There is only so much procrastinating a person can do until the battery of his mobile/tablet gives out. I have nothing against TikTok, but YouTube got here first and it does more than I ever needed. 

And for the text “The measure – signed into law by President Biden in April – has been prompted by concerns that US users’ data is vulnerable to exploitation by China’s government.” It gives me the question, what evidence is presented? What evidence has been verified? You see America has seen its OWN influencers hand over data (or make available) to Russia, after 8 years we FINALLY see action and more nations are following. As such I am weary of anything anti China appearing after the BS stage America did regarding Huawei and for that part we still haven’t seen clear evidence. A mere mention of ‘could’ and ‘possible’ were given, but no hard evidence. A mere case that was settled and 10 years old. Even as we are given “advocates of America’s powerful free speech rights, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, say upholding the divest-or-ban law would be a gift to authoritarian regimes everywhere.” I need to agree that these first amendment rights were never ready for the digital revolution we are seeing and we see that in relationship to the Russian paid influencers. I find it weird that they can call themselves ‘victims’ all whilst they got a million dollar deals. Influencers need to be addressed and cut short. If this is not done then you hand a victory to ByteDance and its TikTok. Then we see the accusation “Mr Wang also criticised lawmakers for being vague about the specific national security threats that they say TikTok poses”, really? So where were they (US intelligence) when social media influencers decided to invade national security for Russia. We have yet to see results from that and that is the setting stage for TikTok to be held accountable (if there is any accountability). We see too many anti-China rhetoric, all whilst America is merely trying to keep issues in America and still they cannot tax the minimum part of this, so what is it about? Another claim was seen in another BBC article. We are given “They fear the Chinese government could force ByteDance to hand over data about TikTok’s 170 million US users. TikTok insists it would not provide foreign user data to the Chinese government.” So how is this on ByteDance? As far as I can see it, Facebook already took care of that (via Cambridge Analytica), that is seen as we were given “Facebook later confirmed that it actually had data on potentially over 87 million users, most of them in the USA” (source: the Guardian, NBC, CNET) oh, and that is not all. Politicians Ted Cruz and convicted politician Donald Trump were accused of using this tactic. From there we see the quote “It has not been proven, because the difficult thing about proving a situation like that is that you need to do a forensic analysis of the database”this gets us to the next session. What forensic analyses was used to prove the TikTok matter? It does not because as far as I can see, it is a revenue tactic using the accusation of data. So how often is a firm forced to sell on the accusation? In that case, what cases of forced sales exist for Microsoft? 

That is one of the pillars we need to see and investigate. In March 2024 we got from the BBC “a similar test carried out by Citizen Lab concluded “in comparison to other popular social media platforms, TikTok collects similar types of data to track user behaviour”” does this not imply that similar settings need to exist to the other social media channels? America is a mere 325 million, Europe has over 742 people, the middle east 381 million people and Asia is near 5 billion people, America is a shoddy minority, but these settings are not tested against Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Whatever Elon Musk has and a few other players. This is as one-sided as it gets. And that is not even considering Russia and its poor poor influencer victims in all this. So how is that going? It frustrates me that Huawei had such scruffy treatment whilst NO evidence has ever been produced. 

And in this a report that was given in 2023 where we see “Similarly, a report by the Georgia Institute of Technology last year stated: “The key fact here is that most other social media and mobile apps do the same things.”” So where is the banding of ties to these American social media settings because I do not believe that the NSA isn’t on that same page of collecting non-American  data points. And then we get the largest issues “Although it irks privacy experts, most of us accept that handing over swathes of private data is the deal we make with social networks” it is the price of these free mobile networks. So what is this stage? It is fuelled by the item “Article seven of China’s National Intelligence Law states that all Chinese organisations and citizens should “support, assist and co-operate” with the country’s intelligence efforts. This sentence is often cited by people suspicious not just of TikTok, but all Chinese companies.” If people have an issue with that, that’s fair. However be warned that America let data go to Russia without so much as a threat for 14 years, in the end (2022) we get “Facebook owner Meta has agreed to pay $725m (£600m)” and as far as I know a mere £500,000 was the part for the UK, I think that America has a lot more issues than China. It had to overhaul its data policies at least a decade ago. So how many apps via Twitter, Apple apps, google apps (mostly games) and Facebook has been collecting data? This is seen with “Data was collected on at least 30 million users while only 270,000 people downloaded the app”, so where was the anguish there? I personally see this TokTok issue as a governmental money grab and a consolidation of data in America (away from China). If it becomes a side whether I want my data abused by America versus China is entirely up to the elections as I do not now, not ever trust Trump and I feel that China is the safer place for data and I know I am not alone in this. To be honest, I don’t want either to have it. Perhaps it is an option for Evroc to expand its governance from cloud to include social media data to be placed in Sweden (GDPR) or perhaps Saudi Arabia. It seems that bank violations are harshly dealt with there. If data transgressions are dealt with equally harshly it might be an option. 

Just some food for thought, time for a sandwich for me, yummy. Enjoy your day this Monday, knowing it is almost Monday in Vancouver.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

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