Tag Archives: the Guardian

July 21, 2014 · 11:11

A political triptych

Whenever I see a trilogy I remember my first introduction to something in three parts. They were the works of Hieronymus Bosch. My earliest recollection of them was seeing his work with my own eyes when I was around 12 years old, making ‘triptych’ the most expensive word in my vocabulary in those early years. The events that have been at the centre of our lives lately seem to reflect the chaos we see in these famous triptychs.

First there is the issue I described earlier this week in ‘Here come the Drums!’. Russia has had an opportunity to throw ‘its’ image in several ways. Not because of me or because of the image it needs to have, but because of the image that it could have regardless of what the US claimed it to be. I was wrong! Whether Putin is as stupid as the US makes him out to be, or whether his advisers are working on self-serving needs is something only historians can decide upon. The fact that we see massive amounts of evidence that the local Donetsk population is giving the internet, the initial view (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fjpB5gw3iM) was nothing compared towards the anger we see clips where people are going through the debris (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzcHd118mM). There were additional clips on how people were cheering on downing a plane and other issues of utter disrespect, which seems to have been removed from YouTube and seem too outrageous to add to this blog.

I should also revisit the comparison that I made with the question: ‘A lawyer walks into an insane asylum and hands an inmate a gun, who then kills the Warden of that place. Who is to blame?‘, I still feel it is relevant. The question was who supplied the BUK system, was it Russian, or was it captured? You see, in BOTH cases the international authorities should have been alerted to the dangers the area brought. It was the leaked conversation that angered many (including me). “Nikolay Kozitsin: That means they were carrying spies. They shouldn’t be f_cking flying. There is a war going on“, this baboon, or better stated, this baboon on Lysergic acid diethylamide is an army commander?

The fact that it was at an altitude of 30,000 feet should have been an indication that it could have been non-military. The events that follow, to the massive acts of disrespect and legal transgressions should have been a clear indicator that Russia should have stepped away from all this seems abundantly clear. Head my words, I am not stating that Russia had done anything wrong, the mere fact that it did not speak out loudly towards this transgression tarnishes them on (an undeserved) equal footing as Commander Nikolay Kozitsin. President Putin should have seen that one coming a mile away. This is nothing compared to the stupidity by Sky News shown on the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/20/sky-news-presenter-brazier-mh17-luggage-crash), where Colin Brazier shows himself to be more ignorant then a first year Journalism student. His actions were met with outrage by fellow presenters Jacqui Oatley and Shelagh Fogarty. There is one correction that must be made, the initial information I had, was that the Data Flight Recorders (black boxes) were on route to Russia, whilst the information I currently have is that they had only recently been taken to Donetsk (at http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh17-black-boxes-under-rebel-watch-in-donetsk-according-to-separatist-leader-20140721-zv4lg.html). It seems only correct that I alter that part here.

There is another side to all this, as we see (at http://www.smh.com.au/world/john-kerry-says-us-has-enormous-amounts-of-evidence-linking-russia-with-mh17-disaster-20140721-zv4mz.html) that the MH17 disaster is linked to Russia, there are still questions that give worry to this. Yes, I agree that in my view Russia bares definite responsibility, not just by the possible SAM delivery (as the original is still in question), but the fact that the pro-Russian separatists were not stricken down in a verbal lashing from the Kremlin to give full cooperation, which is a much heavier transgression. Consider that these ‘pro-Russians’ would not listen, accept, or heed the words from Moscow; does that not make them simple terrorists? If that would be the case, how could Russia consider not distancing themselves from this disaster from the very first moment the events took place? If Russia is in league with these terrorists, then was the downing of MH17 not a clear act of war?

Is at the centre of it all?

Consider the financial situation the USA is currently facing, it is broke, which means it has no way to feed the war industry, which gives Moscow a distinctive advantage, if we accept that neither wants to go nuclear any day soon, then the acts of ‘sanctions’ is pretty much the biggest artillery the west can muster at present, even as we continue to see the results of acts within Donetsk. It is harder to tell whether I am right or wrong (I could be either), yet the inactions in Syria and now Eastern Ukraine seems to show a lack of directive from all NATO parties (not just the US). This all gives shape to the art on the left side of the Triptych.

The next issue is the one I also briefly touched upon, it is the escalating issues in Gaza, where it seems more and more clear that Israel has had enough of the threat Hamas has made over the last few years and the loss of support that Hamas is enjoying, as well as the US no longer having a clear and powerful hold over the region on an economic base is also a cause for Hamas to wonder whether their approach to issues would ever have worked to begin with. Now that Egypt is distancing itself more and more from Hamas, they are now hoping for a resolution through Qatar, where they seem to hope that the UN will be able to find options with the help of Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. The Sheik is a diplomatic force to be reckoned with, as a Sandhurst graduate, which is regarded as the finest military officer’s education in the world. The only issue that would remain is whether Hamas is in any way entitled to such distinctive representation. In one way, it might actually result in actual cease fire talks between Hamas and Israel; it is however also one of the final straws Hamas has left, if they decide to break that truce in any way, the results could not just end Hamas, it might actually end the options for any Palestinian Gaza. It could result in the biggest poker hand the Middle East has seen in a few decades. That and the option that progress could be in result will only emphasize the amounts of power lost to the US (who was utterly unable to make any headway here). It will also strengthen Qatarian influence over a larger portion of the Middle East, which could be exactly why Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani might consider to assist in the matter as well as the motto he trained under ‘Serve to Lead‘. Achieving that might just leave the Academy General’s bursting with pride (the General who was leading the academy when the Sheik was a student there). If we go back to the Triptych, then this would be right side of the Triptych. So what is at the centre?

These two sides are linked to a much larger painting in the middle. It is without a doubt the economic sides we have seen overwhelming the left and the right side. It is not the economy of missile systems (which might be an implied reference), but it is the economic powers that are too scared to lose it all in a war, which is of course the smallest of reasons to consider war over, but it is a factor none the less. More important, it is the diminished economic power of the US that is centre on all this. It would be unfair to just refer to the US here, but the bulk of the EEC is in a worse shape than the US currently is, so that is why the US is still the central element in all this. Their inability to get control of their overspending is a massive reason for the ‘blame’ towards the US. But let us not forget that the UK is not without blame either. In its current shape (especially the massive debt) the UK is also lacking in power to set for the ‘demanding’ (or better stated ‘intensely requesting’) image that should be given towards Eastern Ukraine and Israel/Hamas in these matters. Even if we give the proper weight to the Guardian article on the GDP of the United Kingdom (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/20/gdp-surpass-pre-financial-crisis-level), the headline ‘GDP to surpass pre-financial crisis levels‘ is just an indicator and even though I admit that the UK is still getting back on the horse, the issue ‘ignored’ for now is that Gross Domestic Product is no real indicator of better times, only for now that this seems to indicate good times for the ‘rich’. People in the UK are still on massive levels of debt and that is not likely to change any day soon. There is still a shortage on jobs and those who do have a job are inclined to go along with outrageous amounts of legalised slave labour. Freedom comes at a price, or better stated, when big business rules (or massively influences) the actions of government, we see an unbalanced view on life and every inch they do not claim will come at another cost.

Here we see the elements of a triptych by Hieronymus Bosch. Either of the famous three of his triptychs could apply to the chaotic mess we are all facing. In the end there is enough imagery to debate which one is the best depiction. The economic sector would argue that we are in the triptych ‘The Garden of Earthly Delights‘, whilst the people under the pressures of this economy will counter that their fate is shown by the triptych ‘The Last Judgment‘. The view also reinforces the views outsiders have towards the entire economy. Partaking in it will always be better than watching the result on the outside looking in, because those on the outside will never get to partake in the game at all.

2014 might end up being a very decisive year for many of us!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Tagged as Boeing 777, Colin Brazier, Donetsk, Hieronymus Bosch, Jacqui Oatley, MH17, Nikolay Kozitsin, President Putin, Qatar, Russia, Sandhurst, Serve to Lead, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Shelagh Fogarty, Sky News, the Guardian, triptych, US, USA, Youtube

July 8, 2014 · 10:04

To be deleted!

I stumbled upon an article by Kevin McKenna that was an interesting read. It was published last Sunday (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/05/google-right-to-be-forgotten-kevin-mckennas-own-confessions). The headline caught me at first stating “Don’t hide your dark side from Google. Much better to tell all“, which works out really well for Google, but what about the person? In his ‘journey’ as a starting Facebook user, this quote seems the strongest “And I realise with mounting horror that this is how real people with normal lives interact with each other and that it is I who am out of step once more. So I fear I may soon have to conclude my Facebook experiment before I alienate that dwindling band of those who still regard me with some fondness“, but as I see it, the article never ever goes anywhere near the issue why people want things to go away. The reference “we discovered that prominent people are beginning to deploy some arcane European privacy legislation to force Google to ‘forget’ about their historical misdemeanours“, sounds funny enough, but is that it? The following reference “American financier Stan O’Neal who helped drive his bank to ruination in 2007 were ‘deleted’“.

This sounds all fun, but is Google paying Kevin for this article? You see, Mr McKenna does not get within one mile of the actual issues, the dangers that Social media brought upon us all (many were likely never a consideration when Mark Zuckerberg came up with the idea to begin with).

We get the following from Forbes “But there’s another good reason for checking out a candidate’s Facebook page before inviting them in for an interview: it may be a fairly accurate reflection of how good they’ll be at the job” (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/03/05/facebook-can-tell-you-if-a-person-is-worth-hiring/). Here is the kicker: the workplace is riddled with people not really that great in sizing other people up, a fair chunk of them in HR and upper management. I have been around for a long time, and these people look at ‘presentation’. I have met my share of managers with ‘fuck all’ (pardon my French) idea of what actually needs to be done, like most sales people they will have a nice PowerPoint, and when reality hits, they will dump it on the people who will end up doing the actual job, which often enough is not them. In addition, we see recruiters who have no idea how to be a recruiter. I used to have one that never had anything for me and actually send ME the resume of others asking if I had a job for them. Really? These people will seek you out on Facebook and judge you for what YOUR FRIENDS will post on your page?

Mr McKenna has spent absolutely no words in that regard. To those youthful young undergrad recipients, Facebook could at this point be nothing less than a career death sentence; even if those around them know that those people will work their asses off getting it all done. That part is never on Facebook and they lost out on a job. Better stated: that corporation lost out on a person who would have been one of the best Returns On Investment EVER!

CNet adds a little more (at http://www.cnet.com/au/news/facebookers-beware-that-silly-update-can-cost-you-a-job/), here we see the headline “Study shows that companies have rejected 1 in 10 people between ages 16 and 34 because of something the person shared on social media“. CNet has graphics too, so check it out. It goes in the same direction as Forbes, but there is one quote that I have heard about, but never experienced, or met anyone who directly experienced it “In January, six states officially made it illegal for employers to ask their workers for passwords to their social media accounts“.

These people should reply with the fact that many agreements state the following “You must not reveal your password and must take reasonable steps to keep your password confidential and secure“, the very fact that personal privacy is transgressed to this degree is questionable, or is it?

In USA Today (and many other papers) we see the statement “Burglars use social media to target homes” (at http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2014/01/03/social-media-identity-theft-home-videos/4248601/). It is not a new ploy, it has been around a little longer than that, but what is new is the linked approach that is slowly becoming visible.

Although at present, no ACTUAL events are currently documented, other than from the less reputable journalistic sources (Daily Mail and the Telegraph). There is more and more talk on how social media will influence your insurance claims. If you tweet your events, as might your children whilst on Vacation in a place ‘far away’, your local homestead might be missing several pricey items when you get home. Burglars keep their eyes on those who boast travel. It only takes one jealous school ‘friend’ for the parents to miss out on TV, Jewellery, computers and so forth. There is more and more talks on how insurance policies might not cover it in the near future and that mandatory alarm systems as well as spectacular premium rises are linked to these events.

So there is a massive need from many people to be forgotten all over the place!

A more long term consequence tells us (at http://healthissocial.com/healthcare-social-media-ethics/the-healthcare-insurance-impact-of-your-social-media-graph/), that social media goes so much further than that. As a data miner I have always seen this, but many are only now seeing the dangers. This article voices is perfectly by stating the following two thoughts:

“What if health insurance companies realized that with whom you associate may correlate to your health and thus risk?” and “What if your online behaviour indicated (directly or indirectly) your health behaviour – either psychiatric or otherwise?“, so not only could your health care cost spike, in some cases you might not be able to get coverage as you are considered too much of a risk factor. So a person’s unadulterated need, to speak out ‘Suicidal and standing on the edge‘, might in light of their upcoming ‘healthcare premium to be’, seriously consider taking that one final step at that point.

There is one quote I saw that covers the dangers of Social Media that we should all mind “Behind every successful student , there is a deactivated Facebook account“. The issue for us all is that there is genuine truth in that statement (or status). Not because of what the student does, but because of what others do with the data and with the image incorrectly reflected. In one account I took a look at his page had references to ‘Hash Brownies’ and ‘Funky mushrooms on his bacon and egg roll this morning’. The man is a Vegan with an utter dislike for chocolate (I tend to get his chockies around Easter). So, will he see his premium rise by insurances in the future? Because SOMEONE said so?

So Mr McKenna, The ‘right to be forgotten on Google’ is not a strange concept at all, in this day and age it might be the next essential thing if we are to move forward in an affordable way.Because at this point, there is every indication that our cost of living could quite soon be linked to social media data. The worst thing is that mined data just is, and what is taken for ‘granted’ often never is, that is the one part that no cleaning pass in data mining can provide for, whoever claims it can, is in my view clearly lying.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as CNET, Daily Mail, Facebook, Forbes, google, Kevin McKenna, Mark Zuckerberg, mental health, social health, Social Media, the Guardian, The Telegraph, USA today

July 6, 2014 · 15:23

The hungry Journalist games

Another day and another article on Sky News!

This all started a long time ago, but it seems that this article (at http://news.sky.com/story/1293651/internet-firms-take-legal-action-against-gchq), opens up new avenues to explore, aqs it already had taken the cake as one might say. There are issues for certain, they are on both sides, but what is this about?

The seven countries involved are the UK, the US, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea and Zimbabwe. Let’s start by stating that this is an interesting group of nations to begin with. It was an article in Der Spiegel that set them off. Most sources seem to have copied and pasted the same message (Reuters Journalism as I tend to call it), one source also had this: “Their complaint follows in the wake of articles about mass surveillance published in the Guardian based on material released by Snowden“.

So again this could be a ‘Snowden’ story, but I want to take a look at another side and the quote by Eric King spokesperson (deputy director) of Privacy International who stated “It completely cripples our confidence in the internet economy and threatens the rights of all those who use it. These unlawful activities, run jointly by GCHQ and the NSA, must come to an end immediately”

Is that the truth, or should the correct quote be “It completely undermines our support of optional criminal activities and threatens the opportunity of economic abuse for all who desire it. Their unlawful activities, run jointly by GCHQ and the NSA, must come to an end immediately, so that we may again focus on possibly deniable illicit profit”

That is quite the change, isn’t it? Consider the following two issues. First the prices, for example ‘Greenhost’ offers the following:

Webhosting 120 GB storage and 1.2 TB data traffic for 132.75 euro’s a month and virtual data servers containing 50 GB storage and 1 TB bandwidth a month for 215 euro’s a month. Basically, just one account would fit the web space for most the ENTIRE Forbes top 50, not just one or two.

So, in light of recent events, I thought I had something here, the Dutch provider fits the bill, but then I got to Riseup, which no longer seemed to be active and the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) which seemed highly ideologically to me. More important, it did not fit the bill either. So am I barking up the wrong tree? (I have been wrong before you know!)

I still believe that the ISP’s are all about not complying as it is not about freedom, but about bandwidth (which directly translates into revenue), which seemed to fit the first part, but the others are not about that, which makes me wonder what is in play. Do you actually think that the NSA and GCHQ are about wasting time? So, is the Chaos Computer Club a waste of time? No, as far as I can tell, they are not. Are they a threat? Well, that remains the issue. They are hackers after all. Is it that farfetched that some people would want to keep track of some of these members? Let’s not forget that someone is feeding organised crime the knowledge that they need to avoid prosecution, when considering the power that both the Triades and the Russian Mafia have in the digital age area, looking into the CCC to some extent seems to be a given. However, knowing their skills, doing it in the way it is implied to have been done seems a little over the top as most of these hackers are pretty proud of themselves and they are for the most not in hiding. Let us not forget, they voice themselves to be about the freedom of the German people and the utter privilege of their data remaining private.

The fact is that this is an implied mess involving 7 countries, the next valid question becomes: ‘are they linked (beyond the accusation), or are they just a collection of elements?’

That question bares scrutiny, but should also indicate the view I have had of Snowden from the very beginning. I believe him to be a joke (and a bad one at that). Now, most of you will not believe this, but let us take a look at the EVIDENCE. I am not talking about some claim, but actual evidence partially on the common sense you and me hopefully tend to have.

1. The claims that he has made involves massive levels of access. Not the access a hacker will ever have, but the information from top level sources in the CIA, NSA and GCHQ. So were talking hacking into over dozens of top level secured servers, servers which are monitored 24/7. He, some hacker no one had ever heard from, did all that. These people behind the screens do NOT EVER give out passwords, do not give access, yet he had all the information and walked out of one of the most secure buildings in the world with all THAT data? This is a quote found in sources like ‘the Verge’ and ‘Wired’. I think we can agree that wired is a reputable source in regards to technology (at http://www.wired.com/2013/06/snowden-thumb-drive/) “‘There are people who need to use a thumb drive and they have special permission,’ an unnamed, ex-NSA official told the LA Times. ‘But when you use one, people always look at you funny.’” This is not unlike the view I have had for a year now. Let’s not forget, the NSA is the place where SELinux was developed, it was designed to keep close tabs on access control, specifically, who, where, how and with what. So ‘some’ technician, with the USB drive in the most secure server space on the planet is just not going to fly. The question I had from the very beginning is not how he did it, but what was actually at play here? The next part is assumption! Was it to give Booz Allan Hamilton more profit? That was my alleged first thought. If data was going to get ported to non-government institutions, this small caper could give BAH and whoever was getting oversight an easy and clean billion a year in revenue. That tactic, still ethically wrong, would have made perfect sense to me.

Here is how I see it and this is PURE assumption (I will get back to evidence in a minute for my next issue), consider the Microsoft disappointment with data collection plans for the Xbox One. We see some of the changes (at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/us/politics/house-votes-to-limit-nsas-collection-of-phone-data.html). The following quotes are essential here. The first one was from Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, “The N.S.A. might still be watching us, he added, but now we can be watching them“. It is a bold statement, but is it true; moreover, should they be watched? Yes, any intelligence operation needs oversight, which is fair enough in a democratic way of life, but how many should overlook this? Are the people in oversight not granted well above average powers and is it fair to any opposition party that they should have it?

2. What lies beneath this access is the amount of involvement. Prism is one of the named projects with supported links to Australia, the UK and the Netherlands, with Microsoft as a commercial partner. Really? One nation, known for clogs, cheeses, Hans Brinker and soccer is placed next to the NSA and the Commonwealth? It is a technological hub, no doubt about that, but it is the size of Maryland. So, this is just the first of several projects, involving secrecies that would be limited to the very top, most of it would not be written down and Snowden had it (as in having in past tense, details follow). The mention of projects like XKeyscore, Tempora, Project 6, Stateroom, Lustre and Muscular. They are not only different projects, but they are a scope of projects that would not ever be in one location to begin with. So, what is implied as ‘the top’ of data gathering and one IT person has it all? Is no one asking the questions the PRESS should have asked and openly doubted from the very beginning to begin with (a part that is not voiced in any way).

The funny part is that stateroom seems to be no more than the legal collection of information as EVERY government tends to collect diplomatic data and in his claim he made them ALL bitches to the NSA, they just do not know it. There is also a reference to Echelon, there are several references, but the one that matters is not named. A covert niche within the NSA and the name of the source is: Tom Clancy!

Is anyone starting to wake up now?

This is not about anything but the warped imagination that is not even close to a reality. Consider that every government has embassies and consulates, the Dutch have them, the Australians have them, so do the Brits and the Germans, not to mention the French and they have them too. Consulates and Embassies represent their governments. Consulates tend to be specific for people and companies, so that they have backups. Like getting home when your passport is stolen, or to help a company with a list of people they should talk to for starting to do business. Trade will always remain important anywhere. Embassies are more about ‘governing’ opportunities as I see them. The Dutch want to get first dibs on building a reliable bridge, so their ambassador talks the great talk. People skills is what it is all about and talking to the right people. There are other sides too, they try to resolve issues, like a Dutchman committing a crime in Melbourne (for example) and the Embassy tries to ‘help’ the Dutch person to get home again, or to assist local government with their investigation if need be. These people do work that they sometimes like and sometimes hate, it is a job that needs to be done. To get the best results some things need to remain confidential and secret and as such whether through encrypted ways or through other ways messages go back and front between a government and its local representatives and that needs a little more security. Some is as simple as a message of a first insight as to build a bridge; to keep the advantage this goes encrypted. It is the cost of business, plain and simple. There is no hidden agenda (other than national pride in trying to score the job). So, they do they do their job and they are not the NSA bitch in the process.

It is simple approach and the lie hidden within a truth was stated as “They are covert, and their true mission is not known by the majority of the diplomatic staff at the facility where they are assigned” Part of the truth is that the encryption specialist is usually not known, it is not a secret either, he used to be the person, who had one extra book with cyphers, he opened each page and set the encryption box and transmitted the information, often a NCO of communication (often has NATO duty reference A00x0). That person had two extra tasks and most in the diplomatic staff might not know, or better stated, they absolutely do not care.

When we saw the statements by certain key people in Australia or the UK they spoke the absolute truth. The small explanation I gave is done by all, the DSD (AUS), GCHQ (UK) and as I said it the Dutch have it too. It is a simple legally valid and required job that needs to be done, nothing secret about it, it is the cost of doing business and sometimes, to keep a lead profitable it sometimes gets handed over more secured, just like they do it at Microsoft (they just get heaps better equipment).

Another issue is the XKeyscore reference. Does such a thing exist, most likely! Now consider the implications of the following, there are mentions of 700 servers in 150 locations. The fact that it needs to intercept without visibility and analyse at the same time as a person does many things at the same time. Even if the best of the best was used (which likely is the case), then we are looking at a very select group trying to get a handle on perhaps no more than the most dangerous 2000 people on the planet. Does anyone believe that a system like this remains a secret if 4 Australian bases are involved? The next part can also be taken as a fact. Can anyone even guess the amount of bandwidth this takes? Most routers nearby the monitored person will truly get a beating, so whatever this is, it will show up. It is the scope that is claimed that makes no sense. Some in the NSA might find it nice if it was true, but the weak link in all this is the actual internet.

The last part of this is the kicker in this joke. If his life depends on it all, do you actually think he would ever part with the information? This came from the NY Times from October 2013 (at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-russia.html) “Mr Snowden said he gave all of the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow, and did not keep any copies for himself“, so his life depends on a journalist, who now has the thousands of documents?

Perhaps we should look at a much more likely explanation, the man has no value, the press is stretching the value of events, as they would and Snowden has played his part, I still think that the Chinese saw in him what I saw from the very beginning, a simple joke! They walked away and he had to flee to Russia who is keeping him around for entertainment and to piss of the Yanks (which they also regard as good entertainment). My issue is not him, but the fact that I see more wasted time and energy on laughable cases that keep us all away from actually moving forward. In this economy, as we are so stretched thin, rebuilding an economy is a first need, not waste time on some feigned attack on the ‘confidence in the internet economy‘ as Eric King puts it.

And for the love of whomever, let’s not compare Snowden and Assange, I completely oppose Assange and his view, but at least he seemed to believe in that what he did was a just cause and acted accordingly.

In the end this is just my view, but no one seems to be asking the questions the press are supposed to be asking. The Guardian and Der Spiegel seem to get a ‘free’ hand in boasting tons of data and a simple stamp ‘Snowden said it was so’ seems enough for people to just accept it.

4 Comments

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as AIVD, ASIO, Australia, Booz Allan Hamilton, CCC, Chaos Computer Club, CIA, Der Spiegel, DSD, Edward Snowden, Eric King, GCHQ, Germany, Greenhost, Jim Sensenbrenner, Jullian Assange, Lustre, Muscular, Netherlands, NSA, NY Times, Privacy International, Project 6, Russia, Russian Mafia, SELinux, Snowden, South Korea, Stateroom, Tempora, the Guardian, the Verge, Triade, Wired, XKeyscore

July 1, 2014 · 11:44

Cleaning house!

This issue has been in the back of my head for some time. It was 2011 when this happened. The ruling hit the news (and the most colourful version was in the Daily Mail as per usual), where a rapist could not get deported because he was entitled to a family life. The article angered me and to some extent, I was then and I am still now on the side of the Daily Mail approach.

Why are criminals granted a lot more freedoms then their victims?

The more preposterous part is: “This is despite him not having a wife, long-term partner or children in the UK“, so what family life? He could try to get one in Nigeria for all I care.

The convention can be found here: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

The actual text: “ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life, 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

It sounds nice enough, but it is time for some tough love, so I recommend adding the following:

“3. In case of conviction of a serious crime, that nation can decide to ignore rule 1, providing a connection to a long term partner and the existence of biological off spring, born in that nation, not criminally conceived has been established.”

So, we got rid of the rapist, if the mother is a pro-life woman, that will not protect him and moreover, he cannot hide behind an adoption either. Whether this is altered for the UK or it is accepted within the EEC as a whole is of course the crux. It is also time to stop tailoring from a weak point of view. Yes, at this point, a Human Rights point of view is a weak view (I accept that many disagree here)!

Let’s be clear here. I am all for human rights, but these rights also come with responsibilities and accountability, without these two rights pretty much go out of the window. It should also be clear that if a nation independently decides to not enforce paragraph 3, then this is fine too as I added “that nation can decide“, I am all for the right to choose and Like some should not judge the UK, the UK should not judge France, Germany or the Netherlands.

We are not done yet. There is still Article 12 to consider. We can’t have criminals ‘suddenly’ fall in love and get hitched and therefor avoid deportation (where applicable), hence the following would change

“ARTICLE 12 Right to marry, Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right“.

Would change into:

“ARTICLE 12 Right to marry,
1. Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right
2. The right to marry is temporary postponed if one or both persons have been deprived of his/her liberty by arrest or detention, until 6 months after release and was not been deported because of these events
3. Paragraph 2 will not be valid, if a court has ordered the release of the involved parties due to non-lawful detention“.

We keep number three there, as there is always a chance a person was convicted innocently and as such; we must definitely protect their rights too, as I stated we will give all quarter to those who abided by law as we should.

So, it took me almost 45 minutes to get to these conclusions after going over certain papers. The question becomes why these steps had not been made before? Well, let’s take a look at the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/22/britain-european-court-human-rights). Here we see another view when we consider the following paragraph:

“Grayling said last week the ECHR did not ‘make this country a better place’. David Cameron has said the court risks becoming a glorified ‘small claims court’ buried under a mountain of ‘trivial’ claims , and suggested Britain could withdraw from the convention to ‘keep our country safe’. The home secretary, Theresa May, has pledged the party’s next manifesto will promise to scrap the Human Rights Act, which makes the convention enforceable in Britain”

I am not sure I can agree with the Home Secretary there. I see her point, but it took me only 45 minutes to alter the convention into something a lot less hassle, without actually changing that much. Those who come to Europe, fighting for a better life, not resorting to crime can still do that. My issue is that the rape victim, who was 13 at the time seems to have fallen of the view of the world (which might be good for her), yet in the dozens upon dozens of documents trying to protect the rapist, how much concern was given to the victim of his crime?

This is at the heart of my reasoning. Some judges talk a good talk, but then they seem to refuse to walk the walk (if it pleases the court and with all due respect). Consider the paper ‘Women in an unsecure world‘ (at http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/women_insecure_world.pdf). A paper edited by Marie Vlachova and Lea Biason. If we are TRULY going to do anything to make their future safe, then we must begin in our own country. By making the consequence of transgression so high, that considering it will no longer be an option, that is the point where we all move forward and we can slowly start to actually eradicate the violence against women. I will not and cannot state that I have a true solution there, or that my solution will work. The issues are not overly complex, but it is a problem that is massively larger than most realise (including me), I just believe that if we send a strong signal that those transgressors will never be opted any life in any land of opportunity, we might, just might start to turn the tide a little. Is that not at the heart of Humanitarian rights too? If not, then what is Article 14 doing in the ECHR in the first place.

The only part that is laughable in the earlier mentioned PDF is the following statement “The Russian Government estimates that 14,000 women were killed by their partners or relatives in 1999, yet the country still has no law specifically addressing domestic violence“, the ‘comical‘ side there is that the UK did not have a serious option until the ‘Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004’, I am not ignoring the ‘Family Law Act 1996’, yet the issue remains if we see the data (at http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220041) that apparently the UK faces 1 call on domestic violence every minute. So, it is not just a Russian issue, the more data I see, the more that part should be stated as a global problem, with the Russian terminal numbers being a mere outlier in this entire debacle.

If we accept that not all women call for help, then there is a massive problem and governments all over the Commonwealth will need to make some clear, visible and drastic changes. When we start seeing newscasts on how immigrants have been evicted because of violence against women, how long until the local male population starts to realise that their number is up too?

This view is only amplified after seeing this article (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/08/police-fear-rise-domestic-violence-world-cup), is this for real? I wonder if a name and shame option would work. You know, we take his picture and place poster sized pictures close to ‘his’ watering holes. I wonder how happy such a person would feel in the local pub when they all knew what he was (apart from being an absolute wanker).

In several regards Theresa May was correct, the ECHR is a problem, but she was in my humble opinion incorrect to think that this issue was just in the UK, the Netherlands has numbers that indicate that violence against women is a lot higher there, or is it? Research seemed to indicate that Dutch women are more likely to report these crimes with the police, which makes the violence against women in the UK a lot higher than expected (at http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/geweld-tegen-vrouwen-nederland-een-stuk-hoger-dan-eu). Is that last part true? Without better data I cannot tell, but the chance that 4 out of 10 women are under direct threat of violence sickens me to my stomach, which makes the ECHR a larger joke then we are willing to admit to.

I think altering (best), or rejecting it (not that great an option) could be the next step, however, not doing anything should no longer be any option, not in the UK and not anywhere in the EEC, or anywhere else for that matter. Should we go after immigrants first? That is of course a valid question too. I think it is, as stated before, when these transgressors realise that crime gets you deported, a clear signal is given and not just in the UK either. I believe that once these events start, the signal is given all over Europe that a person is welcome as long as they abide by the law. There is of course the question where to add the bite we need. If too much is added to the ECHR, the bigger the chance that we create loopholes because of it and that makes any act or law bill toothless. The strongest bite is found in simplicity (as I see it). In that regard I would like to add something to Article 3 of the ECHR, changing it into:

“ARTICLE 3, Prohibition of torture
1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. Domestic violence will be regarded as inhuman and degrading treatment of a person and is as such subject to local criminal law.“

So, now that Domestic Violence is set on the same scope as torture. How soon until the local population realises that the ‘game’ is up and this kind of violence will get them into jail, out of house and home, an automatic granted divorce to the victim with all rights given to the victim, hence the victim gets the house, the children and what else and those who regarded domestic violence as an option would get the short end of every stick. I am willing to bet that the face of domestic violence is changed within a year after the courts start handing out these verdicts.

It would be nice to see such a change in mentality and I will (again) humbly accept my knighthood and cottage (especially as I concocted a solution after breakfast and before lunch).

I do agree that the solution is not that simple, but giving these victims additional protection with real teeth is likely a much better approach then has been attempted this far. Knowing that the other approach has not worked, is it not time to start opting for a more direct approach?

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as Crime and Victims Act 2004, Daily Mail, David Cameron, domestic violence, ECHR, European Convention on Human Rights, Family Law Act 1996, Germany, Grayling, Home Secretary, Lea Biason, Marie Vlachova, Netherlands, Nigeria, rape, RTL nieuws, Russia, the Guardian, Theresa May, UK, unicef, violence against women, Women in an unsecure world, womensaid.org

June 29, 2014 · 11:05

What’s in a health system?

Another day, another view on the failings of an NHS system in the UK is presented through the newspapers. The interesting part is not that we read it or that we know about it, for the most it seems to be about a level of blind acceptance that the NHS system might soon be no more. We see more discussions (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/28/cameron-warned-nhs-in-danger-of-collapse). One quote is “the NHS needed an extra £15bn from the Treasury over the next five years ‘if you don’t want the system to collapse during the course of the next parliament’“. Now, that comes down to an additional 220 pounds for every person in the UK. The additional quote “The grim analysis is backed by some of the country’s top health experts“, Really? Is that the actual solution? Perhaps the UK has the ‘wrong’ experts in the field. First we see a 10 billion pound IT system that never works, then we get another failed infusion of 3 billion pounds. Could the issue perhaps be that throwing money at it is no longer a solution? In addition, in a greying economy, healthcare will be the most important thing over the next 10-15 years, so perhaps sitting down and designing a completely new NHS, then seeing how the old system could be migrated might be a much better idea (especially as the other ideas are not working).

“The quality of patient care will be compromised by not having enough doctors and nurses on the wards and in surgeries and clinics. The well-publicised failures of care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation were caused by precisely this kind of cost cutting, with tragic consequences for the families concerned.” Is a quote that is in the article and I have a few issues with it. First of all, let’s take a look at the issue (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/28/mid-staffordshire-nhs-trust-fined-gillian-astbury), it is without any doubt a terrible event for the family. The quote “Mistakes were made as her ward underwent as many as eight shift changes and 11 drugs rounds per day. The system for handovers, when nurses arriving for the next shift should be informed of the needs of the patients, was ’inconsistent and sometimes non-existent’, the trust admitted.” So we can agree that there was a shortage, the point is, was it avoidable? This is where the issue starts. Throwing more money at it is NOT a solution, having 1 nurse per 5 patients is also a non-workable solution. The more people go into all this, the more time we see spend on handovers, with two sets of nurses getting/giving updates, not to mention the absolute fortune this setup will cost. I found the following (at http://straightstatistics.org/article/alcohol-related-hospital-admissions-set-tumble), it is about ‘Alcohol-related hospital admissions‘, the quote “If we limit the numbers to admissions wholly attributable to alcohol, the numbers have risen from 45,000 to 68,500, an increase of 52.2 per cent“. Really? Is that what doctors and nurses spend their time on? How about we change the approach to alcohol (and drugs for that matter) and take a page from the quotes of Ebenezer Scrooge “‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.’”

It seems harsh doesn’t it? Does it? Now consider the possibility that Gillian Astbury aged 66, might be alive if something is actually dome about the alcohol cases. We see a little more clarity (at http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/Resources/Documents/s/ss/SSPCTAlcoholneedsassessmentforStaffscountyJan08.pdf), where we find the quote “Trend data published by the West Midlands Public Health Observatory for selected alcohol admissions show that between 1999/00 and 2004/05 there was an increase in hospital admission rates by 40% for men and 30% for women across Staffordshire County“.

How about actually change people? So let’s do the following, a drunk in need is no longer given medical aid. If some youngling wants to be heroic and binge drink himself into a coma, then let his body fight it off in some cage (of course if they have money for private care, then that will be OK). If the body is unsuccessful, it will die. Plain and simple! We will call their mother telling them they should have raised them better and the case is closed. Consider the benefit of lower costs to the NHS, unemployment numbers will go down and we might even see an increase in rental options.

I know this is not a pretty picture, but these so called health experts need to see that the current course is no longer an option. We could do the same for the drug addicted population and get an even healthier commonwealth. The issue is not just the approach of certain people; it is the entire look that non-action gives all. Consider the PDF I added the linked to, in Table 9 (on page 26), we see a changed trend of 272%. So, almost three times as many go for the bottle in a group? The fact that this is not dealt with is a plain joke, especially as the NHS gets to clean up that mess in addition to dealing with the ‘actual‘ sick. There are alternatives! One is that all alcoholic beverages are raised by 23% taxation, which all goes to the NHS, which seems unfair to the population that can actually temper their alcohol use. The UK could instigate a Swedish approach to alcohol (also expensive), but you can only get hard liquor on an identity card, which gets registered and you cannot buy more than 2 bottles a month. Or we let the alcohol abusers die. You see, we can go in all directions, but most people, weak as they are, are unable to make the hard decisions and will force a situation where more money is given. This is fair enough, but then we add taxation, including to the lowest income bracket, to get more money for the NHS. Now, these same experts will tell you that this is not a solution either.

There is no choice; hard options will have to be selected in one way or another. It seems that steering clear of some zero tolerance options have been ignored for too long and those who are actually trying to get healthy so that they can contribute to family and society are dying, like Gillian Astbury. This part is however not shown to such a degree by the journalists at large. There is one more table to consider in that PDF. In table 19 we see that the total of the alcohol misusers cause a massive £1,701,900,000 to the UK health economy. So if we need cut backs, then here is one point seven billion in savings. Mr Prime minister! (I think I just earned my knighthood and a small cottage in saffron Walden) I think that the total savings in damages that these drinkers are causing is considerable larger than just to the health economy.

I am all for a better NHS, I am all for giving doctors and nurses a better tomorrow and if just throwing money at it would make that difference, then I would be all in favour of it, but there is almost 10 years of data disproving that, we see an NHS system that is rattled by big business (pharmacy and IT for example) and politicians and the approach as it is at present can no longer be maintained. Perhaps we need to make additional changes to the patients as well. The healthcare is all about keeping track of data and details, what if the patient becomes the data carrier? What if the nurse has a tablet with details and patient numbers, which is transferred to the new nurse and as they go over it, they can verify with the patient chip? When I go into ANY hospital, I see a multitude of papers, folders and more papers and people entering reports in computers and then printing it all. What if we take the next generation in solutions and take away 30% of that workload?

When people ask which company will do this, the answer should be ‘None!’. The UK is filled with universities, some of them regarded as the most prestigious and brightest on the planet. Consider that most IT people, might claim experience, yet their drama skills are the only ones that improved for the most, is it not up to the Universities, those who are introduced to the newest ideas, design a solution that would make the work of the doctors and nurses at the NHS better, slightly more efficient and a truckload of less hassle! Is that such a tall order?

We will get to the solutions if we are willing to navigate other options. We have seen that the current path is not a success; new methods might not be a failure. It is a road that politicians should be willing to go, if only to make sure that a possible solution was not overlooked.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as David Cameron, doctors and nurses, Gillian Astbury, health, Mid Staffordshire, NHS, Saffron Walden, straightstatistics.org, Sweden, the Guardian, UK

June 25, 2014 · 10:19

View to the North

It is again the guardian that calls my attention to events happening (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/22/independent-scotland-startup-costs-200million). It is important to know that I have nothing against Scotland becoming independent. I think that the timing is not great as we are in a massive economic downturn, but the Scots will correctly ask when would be the right moment? Anyway, as this independence is becoming more and more of a reality, we all need to look at what happens after.

The Scots have a few advantages. As the Scots seem to be members of a conservative party with its motto “Let’s not trust a computer farther then we can throw it“, we are set with the positive part that not trusting computers is not at all bad (Yes, as an IT person I am stating this). The downside is that the average Scot can throw a log really far, so tossing a computer might not be such a challenge after all. The issue is in the headline of the article. “Independent Scotland’s start-up costs ‘could be as little as £200m’” and “Leading academic says that could cover duplicating core Westminster functions, but millions would be needed to build necessary IT systems“. I have an issue here. There is an underestimation of requirements here. Yes, overall the costs might seem low, but when Scotland realises that the costs go beyond initial costs and they get to deal with infrastructures, at this point the costs will not be contained that easily.

Why do I care?

Caring is not the best word here. I think that in this case it is more that I like to see goals succeed, even if I do not completely agree with them. Only a real loser is trying to do what they can to make others fail, making others fail is fair when you are at war and we are not at war with the Scots, or with Scotland. The fact that about 3-4 generations ago, my family was from Perthshire (as far as I could tell) does not work in either direction either.

The other quote is “the final tally would be decided in a ‘poker game’ of post-referendum negotiations, according to the leading economics professor who last month criticised the UK government for inflating his figures on the subject“. Since when would anyone decide certain matters in a poker game, is also beyond me. Becoming independent is either tactical or on principle and one should not gamble on the Achilles heel that the people could create in this manner. In that same matter I am not sure if I can agree with the setting that this professor sets. The reference is towards Professor Patrick Dunleavy at the London School of Economics. A person who very likely knows more than 10 times more about economics then I ever will, even if I started to study economics full time at this point.

As stated, I have issues. Scotland will need an infrastructure, services and other matters. Several Scotland, as part of the UK already has and I think they should just be given them, yet Scotland will now need a proper economical system and set up. A national bank, a defence structure and these things all cost money, often a lot more than most imagine. There is however the ‘other’ side. The quote “In May, the Treasury published a detailed analysis of the financial risks of independence which claimed that a previous report by Dunleavy put Scotland’s start-up costs as high as £2.5bn” feels equally overstated. In my view the truth is in the middle and leaning to the cheaper side. In my untrained mind the costs are well over 500 million, but remain steadily under 700 million. This all makes me wonder why the numbers of the treasury are so far off as well (remember, me is a non-economic).

It is this quote that gives a few insides into the views that are shaping within me “In a leaked Scottish cabinet memo, the finance secretary, John Swinney, estimated the costs of a new Scottish tax authority alone at £650m. The Institute of Chartered Accounts Scotland had put those costs at £750m, while other experts suggested a new welfare system would cost £560m“. Is this about independence, or is this about certain people getting ‘their’ greedy fingers in the Haggis called ‘the Scottish economy‘. This is the part I do partially get. We all seem to forget that Scotland represents an economic power in the books of someone, when that falls away into independence, some people will not feel too comfortable and they are all looking for keeping themselves involved.

My question becomes, what can be done and does not cost?

In the age of computers and millisecond decision, I at this time remember my old dentist. He was a Dutch dentist called ‘van Charante’. In the age of computers, this man had the most advanced filing system I ever saw. He had used folders and colour indicators that opening his drawer showed a multidimensional top line table in colours. He saw in seconds something half a dozen tables produced in any analytical system would not tell him in 5-10 minutes. I had heard some IT wannabe’s wanted to convert him. I do not think anyone ever succeeded there. Perhaps that is the direction Scotland should face. It might not be done within the 200 million imagined, but perhaps they could steer well clear of the 2.5 billion someone speculated.

What if the Scottish system reverted to the old systems, not just becoming one Scotland, but in many cases reverting to the 33 counties? Thirty-three areas of ‘almost’ self-management, with a few exceptions, like one police system. They would get a buddy system where the area does what it needs to do and the neighbours come to aid when needed (emergency services). In that case Orkney and Shetland would feel a little isolated, but that might be business as usual for them. The question will remain how to IT some of this, but a system consisting of 33 self-regulating satellites are likely to be more effective, then systems like taxation, healthcare and welfare trying to become three Scottish national systems. If my train of thoughts are correct, then once this is approach is solved, the Scottish system could be an actual WORKING template to fix the failed IT NHS system that has currently costed the UK 10 billion and counting and still not working that well.

Yes, in all this I left out Scottish defence. By the way, has anyone seen what they do with logs and hammers? You really want to run up their hills whilst they smile at you and throw you a gauntlet or two? I for one ain’t that stupid to begin with, but that might be just me.

A final quote from the Guardian is “The debate with Darling, which broadcasters say privately has been tacitly agreed for some time, is now expected to take place sometime after the Commonwealth Games, which end on 3 August. It would potentially be a defining moment of the campaign“, no matter what will be discussed on that day, the truth remains that with two approaches being so far apart, both sides have unresolved issues, without a proper light on both sides these talks will not be the marker of any beginning independence, it could end up being an acceptance on how far views leading to independence are still apart.

So, is my view the correct one? I honestly cannot tell, but I am in all honesty looking for solutions, like any puzzle, an independence remains a logistical conundrum with plenty of loose ends, solving the puzzle is at times the best challenge that can be faced. Getting others to see the puzzle the way I did is the next challenge and implementing that puzzle is another challenge still. Three links in a chain that leads to a solution. Micromanaging these events like the BBC did with their 5 questions (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26836126) seems a little too trivial an approach. Yes, these questions will need a solution and it will be up to Scotland to find them. I reckon the views we seen in regards to the disagreements between Theresa May, the current Home secretary and the European Court of Human Rights shows that the UK has its own puzzles to figure out and they have been at it a lot longer than Scotland.

May we all be one Commonwealth, supporting each other, fighting for each other and at times disagreeing with one another, especially when Scotland is playing England, at that time the disagreements must be loud, jolly and with a few better Scottish players on the Rugby field.

Go Wallabies! 😉

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics

Tagged as Alistair Darling, BBC, European Court of Human Rights, Home Secretary, Independent Scotland, infrastructures, Institute of Chartered Accounts Scotland, IT, John Swinney, London School of Economics, Orkney, Professor Patrick Dunleavy, Scotland, Shetland, the Guardian, Theresa May, van Charante, Wallabies, Westminster

June 24, 2014 · 11:24

The sharks are circling

Today my mind was stopped by a Guardian article of a different kind (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/sir-tony-oreilly-irish-billionaire-insolvent). The headline was interesting enough ‘Bank pulls the plug on Irish billionaire who owned Independent‘, but that was not the reason for my interest. To be honest, it was not the fact that some rich ‘boy’ was hitting bottom either. You take any spoiled millionaire brat and the moment he is funding his trust into cocaine, you know he is worse off than whichever other rich person losing it all.

The following quotes are not the interesting part, but they are essential for painting the picture. “O’Reilly went on to a successful business career, rising to be chief executive and chairman of the giant US food group Heinz“, and whoever knows about their Ketchup, knows they have the good stuff! “Lawyers for Allied Irish Banks said on Monday the bank had run out of patience with O’Reilly’s efforts to repay €22m (£17.6m) of loans and a further €23m due from two of his investment companies. The court was told he had further debts of €195m. AIB accused the fallen tycoon of being insolvent and asked the courts to enter a judgment against him which would allow the bank to take control of key O’Reilly assets” gives us little more than the position he has gotten themselves into and “O’Reilly told the bank last month he had sold investments worth more than $150m in the past three years, all of which had gone to repay borrowings. But AIB claimed only a fraction of that sum – $300,000 – went towards repaying its loans. Other creditors, who are owed about €195m, have agreed not to pull the plug to give O’Reilly more time to sell his assets in an orderly way” gives us only a small indication on the matter how things are resolved. The next shows that this is no dumb boy, we know that the Irish can at times be pretty clever, yet the quote “He became chief executive, based in Pittsburgh, in 1979, and 12 years later was the first non-family member to become chairman. O’Reilly helped to transform the firm – its market value rose from $908m (£533m) to $11bn.” implies him to be a genius. When you change a company and up the value by 1100%, you are what some might say, the stuff of legends, which is only confirmed by “When he bought into the Dublin media company, it had a turnover of just €12m but under his ownership it grew into a worldwide company which at one point included the Independent in the UK as well as publications in Australia and South Africa. He stepped down as chief executive of the company on his 73rd birthday”

There is a lot more to the Independent News & Media group which runs into the billions and then it suddenly hit me. This was all strangely similar to the movie Meet Joe Black, made over a decade before these events were taking place. Was Anthony Hopkins portraying Sir Anthony Joseph Francis O’Reilly? If so, I would love to hook up with his daughter (Claire Forlani, we men have dreams too after all). His ownership also included Waterford Wedgwood plc; those who care about China porcelain will know it to be one of the most revered brands ever.

So what is this about?

Things do not add up completely as I see them. It is like watching a pattern that does not really exist. Giving into it is merely voicing the conspiracy theorist in us. Take this quote from Wiki (not as an academic value, mind you). “The markets reacted positively to the news, especially to the explicit truce between the O’Reilly and O’Brien shareholder blocs, with Denis O’Brien voicing public support for Gavin O’Reilly as CEO-designate“, the approach before was that he had gone in so deep that his hunger for media truly rivalled that of Rupert Murdoch. A group, having assets in excess of 4.5 billion, whilst having almost 1.5 billion in debts. Some will not see any issue at this point. Consider that the revenue is almost at 1.7 billion and the profits are set at 110 million. So, even though not too bad, it is not a great position. This is what some might say a good time to start selling off the smaller parts. Of course this is still not on the mind of Sir Tony. This is where the Wiki quote becomes interesting. You see, Denis O’Brien seems to be the pushing element and his son is set to get the CEO position. So far there is an awful close resemblance to that movie ‘Meet Joe Black’. From the moment Gavin O’Reilly takes over and he is pushed out due to the pressure of Dennis O’Brien, it is a mere 3 years. By that time Dennis O’Brien holds onto more than twice the amount of shares the O’Reilly’s have.

This is part one. In this time, from my point of view, as the power is still firmly with the newspapers, Dennis O’Brien is already moving into telecom and radio stations. He is now regarded as one of the larger players in the UK. However, this is about Sir Tony O’Reilly.

When we see his assets, I almost see a picture of sliding technologies and Sir Tony did not move with his times. Whether it started with the removal from INM is uncertain. What is clear is that he had grown several businesses into behemoths, which makes the collapse of Waterford Wedgwood plc a mere ripple in a very large pond. The fact that his second wife is even wealthier than him should not matter, but the losses he and his brother in law (brother to his second wife) seem to tally towards half a billion.

Here we now see a certain pattern forming, even though thus far I have not mentioned the elements to that loom. Any person has values, profits, incomes as well as credibility. One element is the pushed change by Dennis O’Brien from the side of Independent News & Media. It goes however a lot further. Consider the situations the banks are in and have been in for at least 5 years. There are literally tens of thousands of people too far in debt with little chance to repay it. Then the information in the Irish Times hit me (at http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/sir-anthony-o-reilly-locked-in-debt-negotiations-with-aib-1.1805920), and the one part I had almost ignored in the Guardian became a lot more visible. The bank, which was seen 4 times as ‘AIB’ in the Guardian article, gets a prominent place in the headline. So why is this an issue? Consider the following two quotes from the Irish times “A case has been listed for entry into the Commercial Court on Monday between AIB and Sir Anthony and two of his investment vehicles, Indexia Holdings and Brookside Investments” and “Brookside owns Sir Anthony’s coastal estate in Glandore, Co Cork, while Indexia is his private investment vehicle that holds his near 5 per cent stake in Independent News & Media and his share of the oil explorer Providence Resources“. So, there is no link, or so one would think. It is however weird that even in delayed matter, this is one customer that would repay the debts, so why this push? Is it not weird that forcing the hand of one party who will repay is somewhat strange in this day and age? Then we get this message (at http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/oil-giant-exxon-starts-160m-drilling-project-off-west-coast-29163728.html), which is more than a year old. Was oil found, is there a chance to find oil here? If not, then this is another half a billion bust for Sir Tony, making him pretty much broke. The following was found in the ‘ShelltoSea‘ site (at http://www.shelltosea.com/node/1890), considering that Providence resources (a Sir Tony company) is a partner in this then this quote “The Dunquin North and Dunquin South prospects hold combined recoverable reserves of 8.4 trillion cubic feet of gas and 316 million barrels of condensate, according to an offering document posted on Schlumberger Ltd’s IndigoPool Web site” means that there are vast amounts of money there, which makes the actions of the AIB odd to say the least.

Consider the Russian issues that are currently playing, whether they happen or not, will influence the value of the gas that was found. It is still the question whether oil will be found, it was not up to July 2013 as was reported through Reuters, yet the given options mean that there is still a vast amount for Sir Tony to hold on to his 750 acre cottage. It is the final link we get when we read this headline “Taxpayers will not lose money on the bailout of AIB” (at http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/taxpayers-will-not-lose-money-on-the-bailout-of-aib-bank-chief-30367989.html), So it was not about Sir Tony, it was about the other acts by the bank, holding onto the loans for Sir Tony that are now the issue of a possible upcoming forced fire sale. The banks statement “He added that the bank has paid more than €2bn to the State in fees and interest on rescue loans since the crash” give the message we were wondering about. The banks are slowly losing options, the money us due and as such, some visionaries are now under the hammer. Whether the acts of Denis O’Brien are at the centre of what could be seen as the fall of Sir Anthony Joseph Francis O’Reilly remains to be seen. The acts that are clearly within the realm of ‘the cost of doing business‘ are drawn in the sand. It reminds me of the quote Penn Badgley tells Zachary Quinto in the movie Margin call. ‘In the end one man wins, one man loses‘ is harsh and to the point, but as Zachary responds ‘You know that there is more to it than that‘ is equally correct. Two movies both created before the actual events that played out here are giving us the fact that sometimes life is like the movies, even the bad parts.

Sir Tony is a first eye witness to these events. What we at the sidelines see is that the banks are now slowly in a do or die presentation of liquidating what the banks regard as ‘risky investments’. For the most, we should be happy, but can we? The money remains gone and when the fire sale goes through and someone ends up finding any oil at a cost of 0.1 cent on the dollar, how many friends will the Allied Irish Banks end up with then, considering the boat load of scandals they were linked to?

Perhaps the most worrying part for most of us is not that a wealthy man has lost it all, but that banks are now closing ranks. We are so used to seeing the wealthy get away with proverbial murder shows that the banks are at the end of their ropes, which means that the little leeway we ones had is likely gone too. It should also be clear that this shows us all that the economy is nowhere near recovery; it is for the foreseeable future on a very tight arrangement with whomever has any actual wealth left.

A view we have not been introduced to until now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as AIB, Allied Irish Banks, Claire Forlani, Denis O'Brien, Dennis O'Brien, Dublin media company, Dunquin, Gavin O'Reilly, Glandore, Heinz, Independent News & Media, INM, Irish times, Margin Call, Meet Joe Black, Penn Badgley, Rupert Murdoch, Schlumberger, shelltosea, Sir Anthony Joseph Francis O'Reilly, Sir Tony, the Guardian, The Independent, Waterford Wedgwood plc, Zachary Quinto

June 22, 2014 · 20:00

The Illusion of control

It is three days after writing ‘Concerning the Commonwealth!‘, I stand by my piece. I think that the Commonwealth is facing increasing issues all over the field and as the numbers go up and up and up, healthcare will take a centre seat in a diminishing population of workers, which by the way include issues that will hit Australian shores too. Today (at http://news.sky.com/story/1287088/government-has-lost-control-of-the-nhs) we get to see more about the NHS, the mention of a 3 billion pound fiasco, which gets attached to the name Andrew Lansley, who is currently Leader of the House of Commons. He is also behind the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which is regarded to be highly controversial. However, before we go into any controversial parts, try finding a document called ‘ABPI UK NHS medicines bill projection 2012 – 2015‘, it is a PDF file (the Google link was too messy). There is a massive revelation on page 5, which diminishes a bible chapter with a similar name to a mere Paddington bear story.

As we ignore earlier mentions of a shake-up gone awry at 3 billion and mentions of an IT structure at the price of 10 billion that never worked, here we see that over the term 2013-2015 the use of brands go up from 14.2 to 15.5 billion, yet generic medication needs only rises from 3.2 to 3.9 billion. The interesting part is that even though there is still a brand growth, the bio-similar mention (generics) go up from 134 to 328, so there is more than 100% growth in change to generic medication, whilst the cost is still growing steadily on both sides (generic versus brands), what would the brand side have done if the generic side did not exist?

Three days ago I was extremely outspoken in regards to the need to get the NHS costs down. It seems that the search for generic alternatives is taking a backseat to other options. In an age of finding ways to make ends meet, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has no space reserved in regards to the need for a stronger presence of generic medication.

When we look at:

233 General duties
(1) In exercising its functions NICE must have regard to—
               (a) the broad balance between the benefits and costs of the provision of health services or of social care in
               England,
               (b) the degree of need of persons for health services or social care in England, and
               (c) the desirability of promoting innovation in the provision of health services or of social care in England.

Why was the following not added?

(d) the choice of generic medication where possibility for a responsible health care alternative warrants it.

Now, I will be the first one to admit that my choice of words is not the best one, but it seems where it is known that generic medication is such an important part for the survival of the NHS, that no mention at all (as far as I could tell) seems to raise a few more questions. Key message 4 on page 11 of the PDF shows exactly the part that matters: “Nine of the current top 20 selling brands lose patent exclusivity between 2012 and 2015” and when we consider the growth through bio-similars, we see that the right path seems to be taken as we read the numbers from the office of health economics. So, there is a path to better growth through managed costs (to some degree), the question becomes, why is this report quoting Jane Ellison as secretly taped? More important, why is Sky News not giving proper light to the NHS issues as they are (to a small extent) resolved? Why are they not taking a look a Professor Adrian Towse, Jon Sussex, Lesley Cockcroft or Martina Garau. I would think that the latter two as statistician and economist might be able to light a candle in the tunnel of ambiguous ‘tell tailing’ darkness ‘some’ are sailing.

None of these matters are coming to light at any stage. Even the Guardian on April fool’s day, did little more then http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/01/health-service-biggest-challenge-history-nhs-boss. I will admit that the article of the Guardian was decent, yet the quote “the NHS is facing a perfect storm of rising demand, funding pressures and worryingly low staff morale“, no matter how true, seems to be about the hardships (which remain true). Yet the information that the Office of health economics seem to have is escaping these Journo’s of bad news writings. Slide 13 of the initial PDF shows an even stronger view on how the UK is getting by, whilst the US is facing an overall hike from 176% to 281% compared to the UK index, Only Spain, Finland and France were barely better off. That part remains in question when we consider their population, if the results was correctly weighted (small oops on that slide), then the pressures for patent change from American shows just how desperate the American position is, which is shown even stronger on slide 6 when we see just how hard medication hits both Japan and USA as they spend well over 2% of GDP there, whilst the population of Japan is twice that of UK and the population of the USA is set at well over 400%. These slides will also leave is with other questions in several regards, yet the initial positive view is not reverberated over the press sites, or by the UK journalists. It seems to me that the information by certain newsgroups, especially in the LACKING sight on the importance of generic medication leaves us with questions. However, the Guardian was all over the business side of Pfizer trying to take over AstraZeneca. Did no one properly wonder why they were willing to dish over 69 billion? When did a US company EVER spend such an amount unless they knew that they would end up with double the amount? When we consider those events, we should wonder why the papers aren’t a lot more outspoken in regards to informing the public.

Even if this was all not true, don’t you think that the press would (should is a better word) have been all over the members of the Office of health economics I mentioned asking them the questions I am voicing and a few more after that? Is the silence of the press not deafening? The late April article in regards to Pfizer – Astranezeca headlines as ‘Pfizer refuses to guarantee UK jobs if AstraZeneca takeover goes through‘, which should make us wonder whether this is about income, jobs or patents. Would that takeover stopped any patents, or at least delayed them? If many patents have 1-2 years left, why pay that many billions, which information was kept hidden from us? It is the quote from Pfizer CEO Ian Read that states “The combination of Pfizer and AstraZeneca could further enhance the ability to create value for shareholders of both companies and bring an expanded portfolio of important treatments to patients.” This is a fair, honest (to some degree) and clear message. It is about the shareholders and the message that these billion will come back to ‘us’ and then some. This is clear business, I do not object, yet the overview for the UK? What will it cost them besides jobs? We saw little of that and the NHS has been played like a piñata donkey for a little too long. This is not me stating that the NHS is okay. Actually it is far from that, it is about getting the proper illumination on events, which does not seem to be happening either.

In the end, the quote in the Sky News article “A spokesman for the Department of Health told Sky News: ‘Giving operational control for the day-to-day running of services to doctors was the right decision but we’ve always been clear that ministers are responsible for the NHS’” might have been a correct one, the added information could have been a lot more insightful. When you Google ‘Office of health economics‘ you will not find any links to any newspaper, which is puzzling when you go to the Office of health economics and look at some of their publications. If I would add one more ‘light‘ remark then it would be that the members of the editorial and the policy board of the Office of health economics seem to have more degrees then a Kelvin scale, making them in my mind an essential source of health information for any journalist.

So where are these articles informing the public?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics, Science

Tagged as ABPI UK NHS medicines bill projection 2012 – 2015, Andrew Lansley, AstraZeneca, generic medication, Health and Social Care Act 2012, health economics, Ian Read, Jon Sussex, Lesley Cockcroft, Martina Garau, NHS, Office of health economics, Pfizer, Professor Adrian Towse, Sky News, the Guardian, UK

June 9, 2014 · 10:10

Criminally stupid!

Another day and another Sky News article grabbed my attention. Today it is “Metal Studs Treat The Homeless ‘Like Animals’” (at http://news.sky.com/story/1277765/metal-studs-treat-the-homeless-like-animals).

In London, the reaction to a homeless person sleeping in their entry hall was met with an almost medieval solution. They decided to place spikes on the floor at an interval so that a person would not go to sleep in that location. Most people reacted in outrage on the solution. The article goes on a little more and added the following statement “Homelessness charities say this is not a one-off, metal studs have been appearing across the country for the last decade as the number of people sleeping rough rises.”

So the people are actively ‘acting’ out against these homeless people. The part that puzzles me is the legal side of the matter. In the UK they have R v Miller [1982] UKHL 6, a criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act. The judgment here “I see no rational ground for excluding from conduct capable of giving rise to criminal liability, conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created, if at the time of such conduct one’s state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence.”

I found it pleasing to use the vagrant case, because the person who did this is less a person than the people he/she is trying to chase away. In this case it is not just the homeless person, but ANY person tripping, falling and getting hurt because of those spikes. The culprit who placed the spikes will be directly responsible for inflicting grievous bodily harm, which under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 could get the spike culprit a sentence up to life imprisonment. It was interesting that the news cast did not bear this out, or any criminal transgression for that matter. The Guardian has almost the same story and is pleading for the Southwark council to act against this.

Let’s look at this situation one more time from a legal perspective (me now grumpily looking up my UK Offences against the Person Act 1861 section 18 in PDF form). Even if it is the homeless person and not an innocent bystander, we could prove harm with the first instance (one drop of blood is enough) and as the victim is likely either a homeless person or even a junkie, we get a factor indicating greater harm as per “Victim is particularly vulnerable because of personal circumstances” in addition we have culpability through “Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility to the victim based on the victim’s disability (or presumed disability)“, which we might achieve considering the social status of the person, which also proves discrimination. The spikes and the effort required shows premeditation and the two additional aggravated factors are “Deliberately causes more harm than is necessary for commission of offence” and “Deliberate targeting of vulnerable victim“.

My question becomes, why are the parties (or so they seem to) not talking to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Services) in regards to this act? There is a host of additional parts in these events and they all point to acts of maliciousness.

Even here in Australia the NSW Crimes Act 1900 would have a powerful case against the placer of these spikes. It becomes thus a question on whether it is just for the council, or are nations in the Commonwealth facing a new level of intolerability and as such, the wave of these events are not even properly looked at. The fact that the press is not speaking out in regards to the crimes that these spikes represent is also a matter of question, as is the lack of visibility from the CPS in this matter, especially if we consider the quote “they appeared a few weeks ago after someone had been sleeping rough there“, which implies that several authorities should have alerted the police and they should have alerted the CPS to these events.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as CPS, grievous bodily harm, homeless person, metal studs, NSW Crimes Act 1900, Offences against the Person Act 1861, R v Miller [1982], Sky News, Southwark, Spikes, the Guardian

June 8, 2014 · 10:13

17 or 70 trillion?

Even though we see so many ‘stories’ on how well the US is doing, we must ask ourselves on what value these numbers are trying to convince us of.

The thoughts I am about to phrase started a little after the following had been released (at http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/06/06/standard-poors-is-concerned-about-the-u-s-debt-burden/). “Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services put out research Friday confirming the AA+ rating of the U.S.“, so the US has dropped a notch on the credibility scale. This in itself should not be a reason for direct concern. The one part that does worry is that S&P was the only one doing this. The other part we should notice is the quote “The federal debt was $16.1 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2012, according to the Government Accountability office.” why are we not seeing a 2013 number, which according to some is over 17 trillion? How interesting is it to see the numbers game whilst the numbers quoted are not up to date?

The next part is the article from Bloomberg on April 29th 2014. Here we see the following “The drop in net marketable debt will be $78 billion in the April-June period, $38 billion more than the pay down projected three months ago, with an end-of-June cash balance of $130 billion, the Treasury said today in Washington. The improvement will be short lived — net borrowing of $169 billion is projected next quarter, with $130 billion in cash Sept. 30^th“. Can anyone see the issue I have with this? The debt of well over 17,000 billion is getting met with a quarterly pay down of less than 0.4588%. How is this progress and even though we see that the US still has a high credit score, is the likelihood of a continued credit score even realistic?

That part can be seen in the Market watch quote “We believe that renewed debate over the debt ceiling could resume after the midterm elections in November 2014 under certain scenarios. While we expect the discussions about the debt ceiling to be ultimately resolved as they have been, we still see risks that these debates entail.” So, not only is there no solution to the current debt levels, the chance of any serious solutions occurring within this current administration is close to zero, which means that the next administration will inherit a debt closer to 20 trillion. I do find the headline about ‘US debt level concerns‘ hilarious. Many with me had raised these dangers for well over 2 years and now as the game is up, some are ‘raising’ concerns, whilst those in charge and those on the watchdogs of economy had long known that any level of lowering the debt had been a mere myth for over 2 years.

There are of course other views. One is from Chad Stone who wrote in US News (at http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/05/16/too-much-deficit-and-debt-reduction-too-soon-will-wreck-the-recovery) “now about $17.5 trillion, found on the ‘debt clocks’ that are so popular with debt hysterics. Gross debt (and its close cousin, ‘debt subject to limit’) is debt held by the public plus debt internal to the government“. This is fair enough, yet there is no information, not even any indication when this debt will start to lower. There is another side to consider. When we look at the IRS data book (at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13databk.pdf), consider that the IRS collected a net value of taxation of 2.4 trillion dollars. A slightly more accurate number is 2,490 billion.

When we consider all the numbers thrown at us, like the ‘% of the GDP’ and so on, even if we accept that the 17 trillion dollars debt is held on multiple level, compared to what the IRS collects, we see a number that reflects the tax collected, compared to the total debt. The US gets through taxation a mere 14% of where the debt is at. How is any of that realistic? So, the total collected taxation, before any other cost is taken into account (like paying government staff and utilities), it only amounts to 14%, after all that is done 0.1% is left if the US government gets a fitting budget (something that has not been achieved since president Clinton was in office).

My issue is not just with the US debt levels, it is also about the ‘blasé’ approach economists are throwing at the people stating that things are not that bad and that it will all work out. That part is a figment of THEIR imagination, because for things to resolve, actions must be taken and none are getting taken at present (or in the near future for that matter). My biggest issue with the Article of Chad Stone is seen at the end. His quote “Lowering the debt ratio comes at a cost, not only risking the recovery if it’s done too fast but also in burdening businesses and households with larger spending cuts, higher taxes or both to stabilize the debt ratio“. There is truth in that statement, yet the issue that the money should have NEVER been spent is an issue that is ignored. The culprits of this dangerous endeavour are not named, not held accountable and many of them walked away with millions in bonuses.

We are however nowhere near the end of this debacle. The articles give another view on the matter. An article was published in 2013 stating an entirely different matter of debt. The REAL total debt is set at 70 trillion (at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/15/california-economist-says-real-us-debt-70-trillion-not-16-trillion-government/). The quote that matters is “Hamilton believes the government is miscalculating what it owes by leaving out certain unfunded liabilities that include government loan guarantees, deposit insurance, and actions taken by the Federal Reserve as well as the cost of other government trust funds. Factoring in those figures brings the total amount the government owes to a staggering $70 trillion”

Now we are off to an entirely different race, this only gets worse if we take the Bloomberg article into account from March 2014, which headlines as ‘Debt Exceeds $100 Trillion as Governments Binge‘ (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-10/debt-exceeds-100-trillion-as-governments-binge.html). Make sure you realise that this last article is about global debt and not about US debt.

This was already on my scope for another reason, but I will return to that shortly. I need to return to the Fox News article where it stated the view of Professor Hamilton, an economics professor from San Diego. The reason for this is because I try to stay fair and balanced (statement plagiarised from Fox News) and as such, as I found additional views from the professor, it is only fair that I mention that too. This all is linked to a paper he published in 2013 (at http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilton/Cato_paper.pdf), it is the starting quote “This paper examines the growth of federal liabilities that are not included in the officially reported numbers” which should grab your attention. Yes, we are talking about ‘off’ the book liabilities, which should make us all wonder whether ANY government should be allowed to be part of liabilities that are not on the books to begin with. If our job is to stem the tide of irresponsible spending, then keeping things ‘off the books‘ as the ‘kids’ seem to state, should not be allowed under any condition. If we look at the quote that was found in the Econ browser by professor Hamilton, we see “Similar calculations from the trustees reports for Medicare report Medicare’s net unfunded liabilities for current program participants to be $27.6 trillion. For more details see Table 4 and the accompanying discussion in my paper.” The floor should open to an entirely different debate and soon. I think it is high time that these events are properly mapped out and as such ALL governments need to adhere to a different level of ‘accounting’. Their books can no longer remain silent in regards to unfunded liabilities. Is it any wonder books are not in order in a massive amount of nations?

This now grabs back to other observations I made and more important the small revelation my data implied. On March 22^nd 2013 I wrote the blog article ‘60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!‘, here I quoted “If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and US combined) then that difference would be $112T“, I implied to some extent that not only were the percentages messed with, I had some reason to believe that someone had messed with the total trade value that LIBOR represents. Perhaps my mistake (to some extent) was thinking that it was ‘just’ manipulation. In my defence, I came up with these findings before Professor Hamilton had finished his paper, so as a non-economist I was slightly in the dark to begin with. Consider that some politicians could be overspending, whilst using the options of unfunded liabilities within LIBOR to excuse themselves for accountability? What will other governments say, when such events are brought to light (if that would be happening). More important, if my number was closer to the truth then many considered, the global economy is playing high stakes poker with debts twice the size then most realise and our cost of living is based partially upon the irresponsible spending of both Washington and Wall-Street. How are the people ever to get a fair shake at a happy life, when a group of no more than 3000 people have been spending the dreams and futures of well over 1 billion people? Most do not realise that this goes way past the borders of the US, if there is indeed an established group editing the total value of trade considering the manipulation of the LIBOR percentage, the established setting of unfunded liabilities, as well as the breaking up on loans as they might occur. For this example, I would like to point you towards www.lsta.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2480, here we see a paper from Credit Suisse made by Julia Kingston in August 2006. The next part is just pure supposition on my side. Look at slide 35, here we see a term loan set in three parts. What happened when something falls over in 2 or 4 months? How many parts when Wall Street made its 8 trillion bungle was not written off? Is my consideration that the TOTAL LIBOR trade value has a massive amount of ‘entries’ that had remained hoping it would turn for the better? We have seen a multitude of financial advisors playing just such a card on many levels in the 2008-2011 periods. My question now becomes, was my implied 11.2% just the tip of the iceberg?

I am not claiming, nor do I pretend to have the actual answer here, My issue, as it was in the past is that ‘proclaimed’ Journalists sitting in the top newspapers have not taken a hard look at some elements. It is nice for them that Reuters does much of their work for them and many aspire, but will never come close to people like Paul Mason, Robert Peston or Deborah Hargreaves. Yet, how deep did they dig into LIBOR? Also linked (especially with the Guardian) was the claims that Jullian Assange made in regards to banking, they were never followed up (or so it seems), not even by the Guardian as far as I could tell. Consider the article the Guardian had on February 10^th 2011 (at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/10/julian-assange-wikileaks-book-claims). The quote “Asked about the ostensibly sensational bank leaks Assange keeps suggesting he is ready to release, Domscheit-Berg said the only banking documents he knew WikiLeaks had were ‘totally unspectacular’ is at the heart of this”. When it was ‘just’ about the US military there was some upheaval (especially by the US), yet when banking issues were raise (slightly mentioned in the Forbes interview in November 2010 at http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/). The interview gives us the following “Will we? Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a mega leak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it. Is it a U.S. bank? Yes, it’s a U.S. bank. One that still exists? Yes, a big U.S. bank.”

After this the hunt for Jullian Assange really takes on additional energy. I have no idea what he found, or if it is even related, the issue is that there is a recorded atmosphere of unaccountability within the banks (on a global scale) which must stop, if not, not only will governments be allowed to continue in irresponsible ways, but the additional ‘myth‘ that banks and governments apply checks and balances need to be thrown out of the nearest window. A last quote from the Forbes interview is every bit as important “We’re still investigating. All I can say is: it’s clear there were unethical practices, but it’s too early to suggest there’s criminality. We have to be careful about applying criminal labels to people until we’re very sure.”

This is the part I had written about for some time, it was not just that the issue with Goldman Sachs imploded the financial industry; it was the issue that they, in black letter law, basically had not broken any laws. The people lost well over 8 trillion and no crime was committed even though their money was basically gambled away. It is that part, especially in the LIBOR sight, as well as the issue raised by Professor Hamilton in regards to unfunded liabilities. No laws are broken, but we are all kept in the dark in regards to the debts inflicted upon us, which in itself is a massive wrong.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as BBC, bloomberg, Credit Suisse, Deborah Hargreaves, Econ Browser, Forbes, Foxnews, government, Government Accountability office, IRS, James Hamilton, Julia Kingston, Jullian Assange, LIBOR, market watch, Paul Mason, Professor Hamilton, Robert Peston, San Diego, the Guardian, UCSD, unfunded liabilities, US News

Tag Archives: the Guardian

Go Wallabies! 😉

Recent Posts

Archives