Tag Archives: Vince Cable

May 27, 2019 · 12:11

Yay or Nay

There is no escaping the EU elections, the issues are large and the anger in Europe is equally sizeable. In France Marine Le Pen has the lead with a little comfort, but not much. Still Macron got initially defeated (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/europe-election-results-france-marine-le-pen-macron-national-front-rally-latest-a8931361.html).

So even as National Rally is ahead by a fair bit with 24%, it is only 1.5% ahead which is comfortable but by no means a done deal at present. With “even slightly down on what the National Front won in 2014 – meaning the party has made little progress on previous years against an unpopular president” we see that Marine Le Pen is not set in stone, she will need powerful allies in the EU to get anything done and as we learn that “the Danish People’s Party and AfD have stood still or fallen back” it implies that she is already two allies down, and as we also see that at present the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (led by Nigel Farage) only has 54 seats (7.2%), and in all this her Dutch allies fall short by a lot, there the reversion to the old parties is remarkable, it is there that we see that the Forum for Democracy (Thierry Baudet) is seen as the joke it needs to be seen as. Although having 11% and the Dutch PVV (4.1%) shows that Geert Wilders is pretty much done for. Dutch Labour took 18%, with the classical parties VVD (15%) and CDA (12.3%) together they are taking a little over 45%, when they get the Greens on board, the majority is a fact and the other two are out of consideration. The independent also shines light on something I noticed earlier in Australia. It seems that the Greens and their choices are having an impact on Global scales. The Green parties have made remarkable strides in the Netherlands (Groen Links), the Greens in the UK and in France (Europe Eologie-Les Verts) are now a European force to be reckoned with, a shift I actually never expected. As we see that in several places their growth is almost everywhere (where it matters that is) is a 10% growth, it requires us to look into it, these are the voices of the people and even as I am a Brexiteer, I will not ignore the Green view when it grows that fast. I have always given support and specifics on why I am a Brexiteer and I understand that plenty of people have another view, so when we see such a shift it is important to examine the optional why. I refuse to give in to some ‘voting fraud’ BS story. Yes, there will be voting fraud, but the optional 322 fraudulent votes do not add up in a place where 675 million people are eligible to vote. Only a complete fool will set weight to 0.000477% to invalidate any election (I guess that there is a chance that Dutch Thierry Baudet will do just that soon enough).

I am actually willing to speculate that for every Brexiteer there is a person who thought that Brexit was too extreme and pushed towards Greens, other opposed UKIP and went LibDem (a wisdom that is definitely debatable), which is my personal sense of humour that is kicking in. I made notice on this in the last election. I wrote about that in ‘On the purple side‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2017/05/26/on-the-purple-side/) in May 2017. When I dug into the numbers that the Guardian had, I noticed that “a lot of UKIP and Labour are too uncomfortable with the conservative view“, The numbers showed that the shift when Tories were number one, that the growth went to either Ukip or LibDems and they were almost always mutually exclusive, Where LibDems ‘ruled’ there was a diminished Ukip and vice versa, which was an interesting side to see. I believe that this trend has continued, which is why the LibDems surpassed Labor, Greens and Tories, for a lot Brexit was too extreme and they went LibDem instead. How this will work out in the next national election remains to be seen. In this case it will depend on what the Brexit party actually achieves and so far the EU elections do not give them too much to work with. Nigel might have Marine Le Pen in his corner, but with the Dutch, Danes and Germans absent in this, they lack the seats to get anything concrete done, which would have been essential if the Brexit party would be growing a national impact. On the plus side Jeremy Corbyn got kicked out of London, so there is still another reason to party and when we are confronted with that result we see a reason to have a milestone party, even if that milestone has a LibDem flag firmly planted on it.

We cannot tell what Vince Cable will do next, but today he gets to party, he has earned it and he should. It has been a while since any political leader went out on a high note, just ask Theresa May, and as I see it the win for the LibDem will be the hardest challenge for whomever succeeds Vince, keeping the votes will be a large task, even as Jeremy and Theresa are on the way out (Jeremy Corbyn is in denial of that part for now by his intent to be monitoring workplace humour), their infighting implies that either party will not be out for LibDem blood, but that might not be for as long as the LibDems hope for.

In the meantime just to appease Jeremy Corbyn: ‘How many managers does it take to change a lightbulb? None, they are not qualified‘, monitor that Mr Corbyn!

In recognition

So if I am such a Brexit fan, why am I not angry at the defeat? I believe in democracy, if Bremain would have initially won, I could have lived with it, because we are all for the most democracies (except Turkey at present). The issue was that the Bremain groups were complacent, ignoring the danger, and when they lost the fear mongering began. I will revisit certain articles form then and highlight the big business connections whenever possible. The EU facilitates to big business, only the delusional highlight laws and proclaim that the butcher and grocer at the corner benefits. It all benefits the Tesco’s and large providers, it makes the multi-millionaires and billionaires richer, the rest still end up with a diminished quality of life and for them the EU has had a close to zero impact, but they all share in three trillion in debt that the ECB hands over and the chosen (not elected) individuals walk away with enough coin to live in luxury for the rest of their life. That was the biggest issue and so far no serious attempt has been made to cull that problem. Earlier this month when the Irish Examiner (at https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/ourview/pay-for-meps-time-to-halt-the-gravy-train-922371.html) to the small fact of “outgoing Cork MEP Brian Crowley — whose health condition has prevented him from attending the parliament since the last election, in 2014 — will be entitled to severance payments of more than €350,000 and a €1.4m pension package“, so basically the man has not done his job (for 5 years) and gets a £1,541,000 package? Most people have to take a medical to proof that they are good enough to work in a bar at £7.90 an hour, as such, when you are in denial regarding the gravy train, think again. It is one of the larger supporting reasons to be on the Brexit side. A group of people who basically cost a lot and in the end do not bring that much to the table. And it is not merely their income; it is all the extra facilitation and expenses that are the much larger problem, an issue that the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/25/mep-expenses-eu-court-ruling) gave some visibility to. So when we see: “Details of MEPs’ €4,416-a-month expenses to remain secret“, whilst the larger issue is seen when we consider that besides that part, there is also: “Members of the European parliament are paid €8,611.31 (£7,705) a month in gross salary, plus pension. On leaving the parliament they receive a golden parachute, a transition allowance worth up to €206,664, depending on length of service“, which makes partial sense to some degree, yet a ‘transition allowance?‘ We usually get fired or we’re on a contract with a known end date, for a European MEP that is optionally the next election. And it is not one, it is a setting of 751 members and to some degree their staff will also be offered some expenses (which is fair enough).

So when you consider where your money went (besides the unacceptable 3 trillion in debt from the ECB, there you have it and the entire EU gets to pay for all that, so how useful is the EU for non-huge corporations in the end? I accept that there is a positive part in the EU, but it is one that comes at too high a price and that should have been central, but it is ignored to a much larger extent and now that the election are over and the new wave of keep the EU intact continues, yet even as we all bitch on expenses and nothing is done, I feel that Brexit was the only option, I wonder if it will ever actually happen and if we are on the final nose length to enable Brexit what false promises will we see from Brussels and what will actually be done about it all.

I am not optimistic at present, and I have every reason not to be optimistic any day soon.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

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

October 20, 2017 · 14:21

It starts with a wrong label

Yes, merely ‘the wrong label’ is the beginning of what we see (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/16/nhs-data-loss-scandal-deepens-with-162000-more-files-missing) when we see the press look at ‘loss‘ and data files. You see, when we see a million documents that have been removed, that whilst the media (in this case the Guardian) uses expressions like ‘went missing‘ and ‘gone astray‘ we need to worry about the media as a whole. You see this is nothing less than an optional cover up of intentional negligence, multiple acts of manslaughter and perhaps even mass murder. That is quite a leap is it not? You see, when 137 documents are removed and wiped from a system it is a clear cover-up. Just lose those and 925.000 other documents and you get a systematic failure and no one looks too deeply, because now we have an optional situation where MP’s can vie for a few billion to ‘fix it‘. Yet the levels of what went wrong and more important the fact that I myself had a solution available (which would require another year to implement) is exactly the solution that would be preventing this. By the way, this is not about me trying to sell ‘some’ solution. This is merely the application of common sense. We can all agree that a document can get lost, it should not, but it happens. After the loss, if the system is set up correctly, the loss could be recovered. That is when a system is properly set up.

Yet, the opposite is what we see now. Now, we get a mess that is even larger and no one has any clue on how to proceed.

This last statement requires clarification, because merely stating an issue, does not make it one. It is initially seen in the quote “Officials said that in the course of their inquiries, they had identified a further 150,000 medical documents that had been mistakenly sent to the outsourcing firm Capita by GPs; and a further 12,000 missing papers that had had not been processed by SBS“. So it involves several GP’s, which means that the infrastructure has either a systemic failure, or has been mishandled by those in charge. The document went out of the hands of the GP’s, and those who had no copies basically threw away the health of their patients. So what happened when it went to the outsourcing firm? They should still have the papers, or they have forward them to someone else. You see, 12,000 papers (with envelopes) is a large bundle of paper and that does not just go missing, someone received it, processed it and what happened afterwards? How was it processed? The systemic failure is larger when we consider “However, despite staff raising concerns, the firm – which is 49.99% owned by the Department of Health – did not alert the department or NHS England until March last year, 26 months later. SBS was then “obstructive and unhelpful” to NHS England in the inquiry it then instigated, the NAO found“. The 26 month period implies in my view that arrests and prosecution of staff becomes clear. Was that done? What were the actions of the Department of Health, the NHS or the DPP for that matter? 26 months of inaction, it is perhaps the first clear part in this that gives rise to my suspicions. The additional “SBS has paid £4.34m for the loss” gives rise to the fact that the negligence goes a lot higher up the ladder than we are shown. In a place where anything more than £10,000 requires autographs from people who usually cannot be found to sign for anything for months at a time, someone dished out £4 million plus to make it go away.

There is the foundation of mismanaged events that are also the stepping stones of endangering the lives of people. The alleged issue, or is that evident issue that there is more going on can be seen in the quote “People should be reassured that despite reviewing over 97% of the records that SBS failed to process not a single case of patient harm has been identified”, so how does the NHS spokesperson know this? 97% whilst hundreds of thousands of documents including treatments and health plans are missing, how are they so sure? It gives rise to my suspicions of something else. What else? I do not know and it is mere ‘conspiracy theorist’ waves to make any alleged setting here, but the setting in the end that we read about is not about prosecution, it is about an upcoming wave of spending that the UK government cannot afford at present, giving rise to even more issues to come. With “Jeremy Hunt must urgently come before parliament to explain what steps are being taken to ensure this does not happen again“, You see, the ‘happen again‘ part implies that it is clear how it happened in the first place and that is the part where the DPP should have visibly stepped in, and as far as we can tell this did not happen. In addition, with ‘what steps are being taken‘, there is an implied setting that there was a thorough investigation and that might have been part of those steps, yet that did not happen (as far as we can tell) and the fact that the mess was covered up for 26 months gives rise to my suspicions that this was not merely about records. We only need to loop sat the Pharmaceutical scandals in 2013 and 2017, the link to Aspen holdings and the fact that someone saw the option, through a loophole to drive prices by 4,000%. Perhaps that now gives more suspicion to so many documents being ‘misplaced‘. I am not implying that Aspen Holdings is involved in this (or implying that they were), I am merely stating that there have been larger bungles costing millions upon millions that might not survive the scrutiny that the light of day brings. With the Times and the Independent howling one side, the report of ‘lost’ documents is even more unsettling, because that now implies that the usage of certain medication is now only in the hands of the NHS, and they seem to be very uneasy of seeing certain numbers appear. Those numbers will still appear, but now possible on a whole stack of other medication, so that the impact of 3-5 medication suppliers remains unseen. So am I correct? Do not take my word for it and do not merely believe me, I am not asking you to do that, I am asking you to see the failure of these lost documents is a lot bigger than ‘merely’ one outsourcing firm, to lose this amount of paperwork require orchestration on a higher level, that is one part that should be pretty apparent. Yet that last part is still speculative in nature because with the loss of one side, reporting and data dash-boarding on the other side is not a given and may not be impacted, that is the part I will admit to, there are unknown sides in that part, yet the question and the speculative consideration remains in place.

Now, this is not a new revelation, In February and June we saw this news hit the papers and magazines. In all this the DPP remains unseen. When we consider the impact that the events are having and the possible dangers to people’s health, to see nothing at all in relation to Alison Saunders is pretty weird to say the least. It looks fine when she makes a speech regarding the expectations of the NHS on fairness. So as we see “Alison Saunders said the Crown Prosecution Service will seek stiffer penalties for abuse on Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms“, we think she is doing her job and she is, yet she has yet to give us anything on the entire lost paper trail, the documents, the actions by the NHL and the outside resource. Is that not even stranger?

You see this all started in February with ‘More than 500,000 pieces of patient data between GPs and hospitals went undelivered between 2011 and 2016‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/26/nhs-accused-of-covering-up-huge-data-loss-that-put-thousands-at-risk). With “The mislaid documents, which range from screening results to blood tests to diagnoses, failed to reach their intended recipients because the company meant to ensure their delivery mistakenly stored them in a warehouse” we get a new part. You see, stored does not mean lost, and this gets weirder with “NHS England secretly assembled a 50-strong team of administrators, based in Leeds, to clear up the mess created by NHS Shared Business Services (NHS SBS), who mislaid the documents“. So at this point 8 months ago, the DPP had a clear responsibility. You see when we look at the CPS we see (on their own website ‘the three specialist casework divisions are: the Specialist Fraud Division (which also incorporates Welfare Rural & Health), the Special Crime & Counter Terrorism Division and the International Justice and Organised Crime Division. They deal with challenging cases that require specialist experience, including the prosecution of cases investigated by the Department of Health and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency‘ (I skipped the other departments), so we see here that there was a clear setting last February alone, the longer the inaction, the worse the damage becomes, that has been proven again and again.

In June we see ‘Health secretary forced to respond to urgent Commons question after withering NAO report on loss of 700,000 health documents‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/27/jeremy-hunt-nhs-shared-business-services-data-loss-scandal). With “answer questions from MPs after a damning National Audit Office report found that the scandal may have harmed the health of at least 1,788 patients and had so far cost £6.6m“, we see one side, I expect the damage to be distinctively larger. You see the DPP (as well as the whole of the CPS) seemingly ignored “The private company, co-owned by the Department of Health and the French firm Sopra Steria, was working as a kind of internal postal service within the NHS in England until March last year“, so was this an experiment gone wrong? Was this a PLM error (product lifecycle management) on a massive scale and this does not stop with Sopra Steria, there was an increasing risk that CIMPA S.A.S was linked to all this. The operative word is ‘was’ as the DPP and her CPS seemingly sat on their own hands for at least 8 months, maybe even more. You see, my suspicions are taking me to the fact that the Department of Health knew more on a higher level. That suspicion is shown with “the NAO report pointed out that the DH had chosen not to take up two of the three seats in the boardroom it was entitled to as 49.99% owner of SBS“, so please tell me when was the last time that ANYONE in the department of Health was willing to pass up any boardroom seat. Even if the pay sucks (which it never does) it opens up networking avenues for people they never had before, to the ‘let’s not take this seat‘ would be completely out of the question, dozens at the DH would be chomping at the bits to get a leg up in visibility, so that is how I personally see this mess. When certain members steer clear, there is a larger issue and the DPP was fast asleep (or at least so it seems).

And now the plot thickens!

With: “The government’s response has been complacent and evasive. It’s still not clear how much public money has been wasted in this affair or how this private company is going to be held to account. It’s totally unreasonable for Jeremy Hunt to wash his hands of this when more and more details of his department’s failures keep emerging“, that whilst it had been known that up till 8 months ago £6.6 million was spend and it is not mentioned now is only the top of the issue. With the absence of Sopra Steria and CIMPA it seems that certain sides are pushed away from the centre of the room. It is equally seen when we see “Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, a Conservative committee member, said: “You tell us the bombshell that whilst on a trawl of local trusts you find another 12,000 and then you found another 150,000 missing items“, here I cannot tell whether the issue was raised or not (it was not in the Guardian article), yet there is no way that Geoffrey was unaware, a graduate of Eton and Freeman of the City of London. There is no doubt in my mind that he was aware of the links, the question is why questioning in this direction was not pursued and/or reported on. So when you might have been thinking that I was all about some ‘conspiracy theory‘ in the beginning. Do you still think so? The entire PLM issue is one that is not bathing in millions, but in billions as infrastructure crack more and more on the paper trails and reports they require PLM solutions are the only one stopping systems from collapsing overnight. In this regard even India is on par with the needs and CIMPA is taking every step to be the only player of significance there. So now some of the events make a lot more sense, do they not? You see CIMPA was on the right track, until AI becomes the path that solves certain issues, it will be about automation and data processing. For a lack of term ‘from paper to digital data without people’ is what is required as people are the drain on speed and the postal sorting machines had proven that side decades ago. In the end what exactly happened is uncertain and might never be known, especially as the DPP is seemingly still asleep in all this. Did the solution fall over, did the data collapse? We might never know, yet in all this the one part I left for the very end. With the mention of ‘private company, co-owned by the Department of Health and the French firm Sopra Steria‘ there is one side not mentioned. You see private companies have revenues and profits, these profits go to private individuals. None of the articles shed any light on those people involved did they? The DPP, the CPS, Vince Cable, and the Guardian made no mention of that at all and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown didn’t ask these questions either did he?

5 parties all with interests are avoiding looking into a direction to the extent that it needs to get. The fact that it happens under our noses is particularly interesting. I wonder what we will learn in a few weeks, especially as this 26 month ‘slicer’ is as quoted by Simon Stevens, the NHS’s chief executive to be dealt with in the next 5 months with: “This should be wrapped up by the end of March. End of March is a feasible goal.”

By that time what else will they not have looked at?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

March 16, 2015 · 01:10

In fear of the future

As elections draw near, we see an everlasting image of what was, what could be and what is. The last of the issues is then rejected in two directions. As the Tories will go from what is into what could be, we will see labour into the mesh of what was and what did not happen. They are elements we saw coming a mile away (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/14/osborne-budget-speech-economy-growth-deficit).

War is constant!
The political face of warfare never changes!

Both true, both unconditionally an issue in this day and age.

You see, the one trillion in debt is bogging down the UK and the Commonwealth as a whole. We need to bring it down, yet when we see the more likely response as it is given in the Guardian: “Deficit reduction has been much slower than Osborne forecast five years ago. In his first budget, in June 2010, the chancellor predicted that he would need to borrow £37bn in 2014-5” and “that tax receipts would cover day-to-day government spending. The actual figure will be almost three times that“. Both are right, both are staring down the wrong rabbit hole! If we accept the generic statement that the UK faces a £43 billion interest bill every year, which is more than the spending of Defence, are we catching on? Bankers end up with a 43 billion payout, which is certain money, no risk and all very much fuelling a banking bonus. The interest is just a little shy of 50% of the allowance for Education. Getting rid of the debt must remain the highest priority. Apart from most of us regarding the interest bill as an issue, it is nothing compared to what happens if the budget is not properly managed. Yes, it sounds so nice that we see the quote “Vince Cable has warned that George Osborne has no room in next Wednesday’s budget for a substantial pre-election giveaway, but acknowledged that there was some headroom in the public finances for modest tax cuts or an increase in public spending” (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/13/vince-cable-osborne-budget-no-room-pre-election-bonanza), but regard the Guardian image (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/mar/21/budget-2014-tax-spending-visualised#img-1). Here we see that borrowing was still needed, at the amount of £84 billion, which means that the debt is not diminishing. At the same time, the Eurozone decided to go on a one trillion spending spree, which will hit the UK (as part of the EU) sooner rather than later, which is part of the problem too, because these spending sprees are only working for a drive of the people towards Ukip. To be honest, I am not sure if the premise has changed. I remained on the fence considering that leaving the EEC was too dangerous, but as we see irresponsibility and non-accountability (the sad comedy of a threesome involving a Greek, a credit card and a banker) is now fuelling a stronger drive towards Ukip, Whilst political Europe is wording bad management clauses and whilst they have no real solution, we see deeper dive into debt. The UK MUST AT ALL COST prevent this nightmare. It seems all too clear that Germany is now also ready to leave the Eurozone. Perhaps not the politicians in an outspoken way, but the German people seem to have had enough. Of all the crazy rock bands that Europe has, the Greek one, with at the microphone Alexis Tsipras, the drums are played by Panos Kammenos and as ever in style of Greek theatrics, the Bass is played by Yanis Varoufakis. The name of this band is Aite and it remains to be seen how long the band will remain in existence. You see, instead of addressing failures, the players of this band entered the blame game. A game played by many, yet always only illustrating their own lack of commitment.

In that we see a link to the UK, the UK, its MP’s and those in charge with a title of that what is (like Chancellor of the Exchequer), this person cannot relax, because if it was needed to borrow £84 billion, that means that the words of Vince Cable were poorly chosen, because there was never any headroom. Even if there had been no borrowing, the headroom was not there, the debt must go down, the faster it goes down, the better everyone will feel and the more the government can do for the People of the United Kingdom.

It is just that simple and yes, we will all feel the pain for many more years, because previous governments had not taken control of its spending. Now that the invoice is way past due, the bulk of politicians are all about pushing it forward about pushing away that what should have been dealt with by a responsible person (read a person elected into office). The Tories are trying to get that done and they have also faced backlashes and setbacks. No one can deny that, but the debt must be dealt with.

The issue is seen here: “The Lib Dems have been pressing for a further rise in the £10,000 a year personal tax allowance – the sum before which any income tax is paid – in an effort to press home his party’s ownership of the single biggest tax reform of the parliament. The allowance is already projected to rise to £10,600 from April. Every £100 annual increase in the personal allowance costs £500m. The alternative will be to align national insurance with the personal tax allowance, a measure favoured in the past by Cable as doing more to help those on low pay“. In view, I am willing to consider this as an essential option, but if we are to move forward, it should only be allowed in a balanced budget approach. So, helping those on low pay is fine, but only if we change Basic rate to 21% and higher rate to 42%, which means that above the £10,600, the basic income goes up by a maximum of £318 and in addition, high income get an additional maximum of £836. This allows us a balanced budget. If you wonder why not the highest toll? Well, they also get the 1% of the base and the 2% of high anyway, that group is dwindling down and to seek even more to that smaller group seems a little unfair (the non-bankers that is). The second premise here is that this extra collected fee can ONLY be used to balance out the lost revenue from the basic rate group that had their annual income between £10,000 and £13,000 per annum. The rest of the collected tax MUST go towards lowering the debt. If we can believe the 2014 article by the Guardian, this will hit 6000 people, which means that it only raise a few millions, so taxing the rich has always seemed like and always remains a hilarious act of pointlessness. It is the 1% from the basic rate that will truly make a difference. It will drive the debt down faster, it will lower the interest bill which will help lower the debt even more.

It is basic calculus, an abacus can give you the information and politicians at large have just been skimming the sidelines towards the premise of confusion. If you doubt these words (always a fair notion), than ask Vince Cable to clearly explain where he found the headroom to manoeuvre!

The only big issue I have with George Osborne at this point is the voiced idea “We will ease back on austerity while sticking to our deficit-cutting target“. The article states against this “Even after a trim, Osborne’s cuts programme will still look drastic. Labour will argue that he is taking too much of a risk with economic growth and jeopardising essential public services“, in my view, easing austerity remains dangerous, the fact that the interest bill exceeds defence spending should be a massive red flag over everyone’s budget. On a global scale, bankers grow rich whilst sleeping through the bad cycle, how is this ever a good idea? Sticking to deficit cutting remains a goal, but you endanger this premise by ‘easing’. That is not a premise or a guess, it is a mathematical certainty. Whomever is telling you a different story is (as I see it) lying to you. My evidence? The 1 trillion debt, which resulted in total into £43 billion in annual interest bills and still there were £84 billion in additional loans. Total fo5r last year would be £127 billion in money going somewhere else.

The final issue is the crackdown on tax evasion, these politicians all talk and talk, but this could have been settled in the simplest of ways 2 years ago, perhaps even longer. It only requires one simple change to be accepted ALL OVER EUROPE, in all EEC nations. That one line is: “A company is taxable at the point of purchase by the consumer“, the buyer is the point of purchase, he/she buys an item, it does not matter WHERE the sales server is, by forcing locality in taxation we now see a fair dinkum approach; where the consumer spends that nation also sees taxation. I wonder how quick the Americans will now protest. They have played a long game of possum and now as we act, they will suddenly fear a drop in economic revenue as it all shifts in the true directions of where the money had gone. The change is so simple, is it not weird that those European Big Wigs could not, or would not consider such implementation? It will not make friendly faces in Ireland, but at least many will see a fair adjusted sales taxation approach.

Now we get back to the linked items, Germany is at the centre of changes that will impact the UK. I kept an eye on Bernd Lucke in the past as he was trying to drive Germany out of the Euro and the Eurozone. It was laughed of as a non-issue on more than one occasion. Now we see that Hamburg 2015 is a game changer, you might think that +6.1% is nothing, it seems low against the SPD with 45%, but the AFD now has seats where it did not have them before, also as the SPD is no longer a majority party, the game now changes in Germany for many people. The German people have had enough, the events of last month whilst a nation with a mere 2% of the Eurozone GDP is an affront to many people, especially as Greece is not cleaning up its act. This matter will soon shift in stronger ways. Linked to this is the victory Front National booked in 2015. They won the first round in the by-election. Something also quite unheard of, but not by me as I have seen the premise change all over Europe. Now as we see escalations, whilst the damage that uncertainty brings in regards to the UK total debt is seen in the growth of Ukip (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/ukip-100-second-places-may-election-nigel-farage). Now we see the title ‘Ukip on track for 100-plus second places across England‘. I believe the Greek issues will drive a walk towards the Nigel Farage party even stronger. And to more than a lesser degree it can be seen a result through the actions of Greece. Bringing up WW2 reparations was (as I see it) the worst they could have done. You see, we all have issues in that regard, but they are counterproductive. As I see it, the Germans still owe my grandfather a Bicycle (Dutch cultural joke), but that device will not do anything for any economy, now even my own and I guarantee you, the bike did not cost anywhere near €162B, even as special a bike as my grandfather had in 1943.

So I am in fear of future, because these escalations are mostly all due to non-accountability. As Greece shows the self-confidence and pride that seems to be self-destructive, we see this element of Aite the Greek band I mentioned earlier, named after the Greek goddess of folly, ruin and delusion, leading to the downfall of all Greeks in the end. Feel free to doubt my words, but only today did we see this in Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/14/eurozone-greece-italy-idUSL6N0WG08S20150314), Italy is now making clear that Grexit will not represent a risk for Italy. The Greeks allowed for a game of chance once too often, now we see: “a Greek exit would be ‘very negative’ but he was confident a solution would be found. EU executives warned on Friday that Greece abandoning the euro could lead to ‘catastrophe’“. One dark cloud does not make for Grexit, but Europe at large seems to have its fill of Greece and not facing consequences of THEIR actions. Does the Greek population realise the dangers and the hardship the Drachma will bring? The rich of Greece will get by, I reckon the rest as all savings are diminished by exchange rates a lot less so.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics

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

February 6, 2015 · 00:14

A basket full of trash

Have you ever had this? I am not talking about the Christmas or the hospital basket. No, I am talking about those ‘greeting’ baskets you get. One of these: ‘welcome new member’ baskets. You accept them with a smile, whilst you know you are getting a bag full of goodies that have value that is close to zero. Now we get these baskets from book clubs and other longer term commitment places, none of this is a big mystery to many people, because at some point, we all get confronted with this basket. Now, let’s change the game a little, now we consider the same basket, but in this case we don’t look at some two bit online retail vendor, now we look at Price Waterhouse Coopers.

That part is seen in the Guardian as per today. Let me refresh you on some of the facts, for that I will take you back to my blog from October 25th 2014 called ‘Price Waterfall Blooper‘. In there I wrote the following “Consider that PwC had (a reported by the Guardian in an earlier blog) last year; PwC was paid £10.4m by Tesco for its auditing services and a further £3.6m for other consultancy work (a newer version at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/guardian-view-tesco-auditing-debacle-pwc-systemic-shambles)“. Now when we add today’s information, information I quite honestly never considered: “The Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, announced the move, saying she had formed a “reasonable suspicion” that the retailer has breached the Groceries Supply Code of Practice“. Now, let’s take a quick look at this so called ‘code of practice’. First of all, the information is found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/groceries-supply-code-of-practice. The fact that this is on a dot Gov dot UK site should indicate that this is the serious stuff. So this code of conduct states at 4.1 PART 4—PRICES AND PAYMENTS, the following: 5. No delay in Payments and at 9. We see Limited circumstances for Payments as a condition of being a Supplier. This is just two of a long list of a code of conduct. The reason to mention these two is the question that follows. ‘How come the auditor was not aware of these facts?’. These are not just simple facts, they are codes of conduct, and can someone please explain to me how this is not raised by the firm charging close to 14 million pounds for one year of work? There are two other parties who are about to see the limelight. Party one is the Press. You see, I was following part of this since last year October, yet, I do not remember seeing the press being awake on these facts. I have a decent excuse living on the other side of the planet and the fact that these elements are not part of my Master of Intellectual Property education, yet the press, Pricewaterhouse Coopers as well as whatever legal aid is out there in UK farmland, it seems to me that too many people were not paying attention at all. There is actually a third side to this. I missed it initially, but when you look at the Guardian on October 23rd (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/23/tesco-black-day-profits-down-92), we see the following: “Tesco claimed that the rogue accounting practices – which relate to how the supermarket banks payments from suppliers – dated back at least two years“. Now consider again the government side that states ‘Guidance Groceries Supply Code of Practice, Published 4 August 2009’, so the statement and the fact that there was a code of conduct out for half a decade, did no one consider that there were additional issues that might rise?

Who on earth is running PwC in London? More important, what on earth is mentoring these wannabe’s? I have good right to speak in this manner. This took me 5 minutes to figure out when I got wind of this small fact, the fact that PwC, the Press and others were not all over this from day one is a little too weird for words. Consider the people that quickly left Tesco when the water got slightly too uncomfortable. Should they have known? I’ll let you answer this question for yourself, but now also consider that the auditors did not make mention in reports on some of these parts, they DEFINITELY should have known about the codes of conduct for the simple reason that part of this is linked to the pesky rules regarding payments and so on. What else did these people miss? More important, consider the date I mentioned (October 23rd), now consider the Deloitte report, was this part in that report? If not, consider that they had to check on these ‘miscalculations’, as we see the mention ‘rogue accounting practices‘ and ‘payments from suppliers‘, did no one consider looking under rock number two? Granted that Deloitte did not get much time, but as we see that suppliers were part of the mix, did no one mention the question ‘What about the Groceries Supply Code of Practice? Do we need to consider any issues there?‘ Did that question seriously not come up?

Now consider my blog from October 13th called ‘A matter of Jurisprudence‘, there I wrote the following “company secretary Jonathan Lloyd, who advises the board on legal and governance issues, had resigned and was serving out his notice until March 2015”, the second one “Ken Hanna, chairman of Tesco’s audit committee, is also set to step aside as a non-executive director as the company’s chairman reshuffles his management team”, which was shown from several sources. Now consider the fact that we see Jonathan on legal issues and Ken as part of the audit committee, they should have known about the ‘Groceries Supply Code of Practice’, which now gives an entirely different light into their departures. So was PwC completely in the dark about this? If the answer is yes, then my next question should be ‘why are they allowed to be auditors?’ Is that such a weird question to ask? It is a code of practice, not a fraternity paper on how to score, so I reckon, especially as it has financial sides, the auditors should have taken a look, moreover, Deloitte should (they might) have reported on this. The fact that the press is only now revealing these events calls for additional questions, but their fumbling is not part of this article, the fumbling of accountancy firms a lot more, for the mere reason that the code states at 5. “A Retailer must pay a Supplier for Groceries delivered to that Retailer’s specification in accordance with the relevant Supply Agreement, and, in any case, within a reasonable time after the date of the Supplier’s invoice“, which should have been part of the financial checks, can we all agree on that part?

And as we take a better look at this basket (have you figured it out yet), we see that the players were in a lot deeper than initially suggested. This cesto, has harboured information, misinformation and above all else, a lack of illumination of the facts as is. First there is Tesco themselves, the latest information shines a harsh light on several members who have vacated their office, in addition there is the case I made on October 13th in my blog ‘A matter of Jurisprudence‘, where I mentioned one person (Rebecca Shelley) who would have been at the centre. The mention on the Birchwood Knight site was “As part of her corporate affairs role, Rebecca will be responsible for government and media relations, investor relations, internal communications and corporate social responsibility“. Rebecca’s job hits ‘government relations’ and ‘social responsibility’. How come that this ‘Groceries Supply Code of Practice’ remained so below the radar?

So when we see months of reporting and we see the lack of mention of this so called ‘code of practice’ we also see the mention in today’s article “Business secretary Vince Cable said: “This is an historic day for the groceries code adjudicator and shows we have created a regulator that has real teeth“. Who is this Vince Cable catering for? You see, if this statement had been given before December 1st 2014, then there might have been a case, at present the act of mentioning it months after going live is just another presentation of a sad story on how some people could be seen by many others as some parties remaining silent hoping to make a bundle down the track.

So I reckon that Tesco will have to sweat the small stuff for some time to come, however, the more we get to see at present, the less clean the image of PwC seems to be. In the case of PwC it will become a case that is worrying on several levels. Not only are the looking for hardship over what was done, as per now it seems that PwC will be scrutinised for the things they did not do, not properly oversee or missed altogether, as per today it sucks to be the senior account holder of the Tesco account, because the fallout will continue for a decently long time to come.

So as we see the basket (also known as a cesto) filled with the trash of information, wrongful acts and none acts, can we all agree that we got a whole lot of nothing, an act that will have severe repercussions and not just legal ones! Does anyone remember this Warren Buffett fellow and how he lost 2 billion in value? If we combine what we have seen so far and add the part that I discussed in October regarding the Chadbourne papers, I can repeat that quote: “that directors of companies must make certain disclosure statements in the directors’ reports. This applies not only to information which the officer actually knew of but also information he would have known about if he had conducted a reasonable enquiry. However, the provision goes further and requires the director to confirm that, so far as the director is aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the company’s auditors are unaware”. This now brings an entirely different light to the Groceries Supply Code of Practice, moreover, it could be suggested that Warren Buffett now has a clear case in legally reclaiming his losses, consider that the US has the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, after Enron, which took care of the power players real fast. The UK has the Corporate Governance Code. I reckon that it is not too far-fetched that Mr Warren Buffett could be offered a deal for his lost two billion. If so Warren, remember this poor blogger and I feel so much better getting to work in a new Jaguar XK, in British racing green of course.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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

May 1, 2013 · 21:14

Another banking issue

People might have read a previous blog where I discussed the issues involving LIBOR and a resolution donation of over half a billion dollars of fines by the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Today’s article by Jill Treanor of the guardian at “http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/01/vince-cable-rbs-prosecutions” gives notice of issues at play. Moreover, these issues have been at play for some time now and there is clear need for answers on several levels. The article mentions the issues as quoted: ‘Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have been reviewing whether a case can be brought against any former directors since January 2012‘.
So, it seems that this investigation has been going on for 15 months. A letter was written to Lord Wallace in this matter. My question would be the why it is taking his Lordship the Advocate General of Scotland this long?

There is no doubt in my mind that it is a complex issue, yet overall, when it comes to banking issues, too often the public perceives this as the ‘out of sight, out of mind ploy’. The fact that this is the second bank involved in the LIBOR scandal and the fact that the fines are currently sailing close to 1 billion pounds in the UK alone, visibility should not wane for years to come.

This is not (just) about LIBOR. This entire issue is about the investigation into the directors who were in office at the time of the 2008 bailout. So, this is about a case 5 years old and this case seems to have only started in 2012 and now 15 months later there is still no final answer. This is interesting as the UK has the Limitation Act 1980. This statute has different limitations for different crimes, yet many of them is set at 6 years. This means that if defence can twist it that these crimes would fall under one of those statutes then prosecution has a lot less than 1 year left to take a stance and get started. The fact that these issues are still not for prosecution with the CPS are an additional matter of question.

If we look at the Limitation act and we consider this to be a tort, then Part 1, section 2 states: “2. An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. (Time limit for actions founded on tort)“.

The same time limit applies to actions founded on simple contract. The interesting question becomes where these issues are founded on. Is mismanagement a wrongful act, and there for a Tort? Are these wrongful actions and forms of mismanagement breach of contract?

Yet, we should not despair. There is a wise addition in this act that is stated in section 32 of that same act, which deals with ‘Fraud, concealment and mistake‘. Hip, hip, hurrah!
There it states “the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”

So we might have a little more time left. Yet, we should not…. how is that expression again? ‘Dilly dally’. Yes, that was it. My grandmother told me that more than once. So we should not dilly dally to find the answers whether we have a case against those directors, lest we forgot that time ran out.

So you see, I am not convicting them, but I do want to see a case brought to trial where they can either be convicted, or where they can submit evidence that would exonerate them. Either will be the case, yet no case means there will not be any answers forthcoming. This would be interestingly unfair as that bank gave the taxpayer an additional cost of 45 BILLION pounds to the taxpayer. If you are from the UK and reading this then you should ask yourself. Did you make your GBP 666 donation to the save the Royal Bank of Scotland funds? Will you? If not then we should figure out what happened and get this to trial. Considering that the UK has a 1 trillion dollar deficit, then the added debt is costing its citizens GBP 225 million each year in interests. That is almost 3.5 pounds per citizen each year just to keep that part of the debt on par.

So yes, it is interesting to read the article by Jill Treanor. It is also interesting that she was not the only one to mention it; similar articles could be read in the independent, the Telegraph and on the website of the BBC. It seems to me that this is not some political ploy as both MP Vince Cable (Twickenham) and Lord Wallace (Shetland) both seem to be Liberal Democrats, unless Mr Cable prefers Shetland over Twickenham.

The Guardian refers to the report of April on Banking Standards. The report was described to be enthusiastically damning. In another fine piece of writing by Jill Treanor at: “http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/04/bankers-brought-down-hbos” is one sentence that I found ….hmmm, ‘hilarious’ just does not describe that sinking feeling in me. The sentence was “Under pressure from parliament Goodwin’s pension was halved to £340,000“. Are you guys for flipping real? My total pension will never even come close to that amount as a total sum. If there was ever a case of evidence that incompetence pays, then that would be the evidence at hand.

This gives way to a quote in a book by Robert L. Bradley it states: “The businessman who refuses to acknowledge, despite clear evidence, that his facilities are out-dated, his product uncompetitive and his cash flow inadequate, is dishonest just as the one who makes fraudulent claims to the customers is dishonest. Both are trying, at the deepest level, to fake reality.” (Bradley,‘Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy’,2009,p.66).

I think with this quote he hits the nail on the head for a truckload of cases. He also shows a graphical  bar of difference between incompetence and prosecutable fraud, whilst showing unethical behaviour and Philosophic fraud somewhere on the trajectory. This book is actually quite the little gem where they look at more than just ENRON and a few other devious little greed seekers. It even takes time to discuss the UK and ‘the Coal panic’ of 1865. So keep this book in mind please, it is a diamond in its own right.

So even though we get into the ‘Cloak and Kegger’ mindset that it is not a crime to be incompetent, then there is still the need to assure ourselves of a situation where those people do not run places like banks and corporate enterprises. Financial Services Authority (FSA) was supposed to have handled issues and cases, yet the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards seems to show a lack of actions on several levels. That committee on their web page reflected “The regulators also have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to their role earlier in the HBOS debacle. From 2004 up until the latter part of 2007, the FSA was ‘not so much the dog that did not bark as the dog barking up the wrong tree’”

From my view I wonder whether the regulator realised they were indeed the fore mentioned dog, whether they realised what a tree was and whether it ended up eating a bone instead.

The commission report which can be read at: “http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201213/jtselect/jtpcbs/144/144.pdf” leaves us with another question that requires serious visible pondering by the press on several levels too. If we consider the issues of HBOS (20 billion) and RBS (45 billion) and the consequent fines that followed over the timeline until now then there are serious questions on those getting an income from the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Here comes the kicker! “and was funded entirely by fees charged to the financial services industry.” So basically we have a group that was not biting the hand that feeds them. How was this ever a good idea?

As per April 1st (no joke) its responsibilities have been split between two new agencies, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority at the Bank of England.

If we see what has happened here on several levels, it seems to me that self-regulation has failed on a massive scale. Both the Banking and Press industry seems to have scuttled justice, fairness and ethics on many levels and at many places. The question is not how they can restore their integrity; the question should be ‘Why are they presently allowed a place on the negotiation table in the first place?’

This brings me back to the bars as displayed by Robert L. Bradley. In my mind the distance between incompetence and prosecutable Fraud needs to be a lot smaller then I am currently comfortable with and the buffer called Unethical behaviour is a buffer zone that should be nothing more than a mere hairline. From those parts I wonder why massive visible and noisy steps have not yet taken place to remove options of self-regulation in several places at present.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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