skilful.com ~ skilled.org UNDER RECONSTRUCTION

Cameron lying about inequality


Think about it – the gap between the rich and poor always gets wider. The poorest hardly get any rise and are still in poverty, those of us above get little more - whilst rich fat-cats increase their incomes by up to 30%, compounded year on year into a massive annual fortune. Incomes diverge, never converge to improve inequality. They think us idiots.


The UK Office for National Statistics help the scam using statistical confidence tricks, including the Gini coefficient. My findings prove this beyond any doubt. The con is to hide the ever widening income inequality between any countries powerful rich families and the rest of the population. Government and authorities have utter contempt of us.


If the government measured weight problems by ignoring the obese and dangerously underweight - you would say they were corrupt and trying to hide the problems - wouldn't you? That is how they measure inequality - ignore the richest and poorest groups - those millions of people most affected by what is being measured. For political motive.


Indeed, the UK Statistics Authority (Deputy Head of Regulation) actually admitted to me about the Gini, “I agree with your observation that it is not ideal if your particular interest is in inequalities at the top or bottom of the spectrum”. So admitting it is "not ideal" if you care about rich or poor. The first time perhaps they disclosed the fact they know it hides the inequalities of the rich and poor. This con goes for other inequality metrics e.g. Palma ratio and S80/S20.


It is sickening to me that government lied about improving inequality to make billions of pounds of welfare cuts to our poorest families. This is not simple opinion that inequality worsens, it is objective fact and is easily proven. I explain how they did it - easy enough for a school kid to understand - but not the 'experts' at the ONS it seems:

 

 


The Gini is a con to make people believe that government are addressing inequality and are reigning it back in, when the truth is it gets worse every year. They lie, so when they show you the Gini go down any year you believe that inequality does. The admission they agree with my observation is proof the authorities know it hides inequality.


They know all data has to be included as it is an essential factor in making the derived analysis more accurate. Yet they ignore this fact. The only logical reason to ignore the poorest and richest groups is to hide how bad inequality is getting. Corrado Gini would have also known this in 1912 - unless he was a terrible mathematician. This was always a con job on the general population.


If government and authorities would lie about that, causing poor desperate families with children to suffer, then they would lie about anything. Only fair wage legislation can stop the greed of the rich in privileged positions of power - remember that if we get any Swiss-type referendum. Do not bottle out.


Image description



NB: I have had criticism about revealing the Job Creator Myth - which plutocrat billionaire Nick Hanauer has recently confirmed in his video.

The REALITY: does a factory get created with jobs as a main reason - or is hundreds of jobs gone if it can be done cheaper by machine?


Jobs are used only if necessity - 'job creators' do not want an expense that has wages, holidays, sickness, pensions, NI, can strike or have babies...


As for the 'Wealth Creator' myth - guess who they create wealth for - themselves - government applaud greed and praise 'job creators' (guess why £).


IMPORTANT - all inequality measures that I have looked at are statistical confidence tricks - it includes even the praised new Palma ratio,


It is much praised as it is supposed to show inequality better - being the poorest 40% compared to richest 10% of the population.


Scotland 'improved' since 2011/12 to 2014/15, falling from 118% to 112% with Palma. Good news for Scottish people and government - or deception?


To explain: they pretend the 40% and 10% groups are two large families – the simple comparison that the Palma ratio shows.


That is where professors 'go wrong'. They are, of course, millions of separate families on differing divergent incomes, divided into two large groups.


If you can think for a moment about just the richest 10% group - concentrate on that.


In any one year the bottom of that range will rise relatively little, whilst the richest at the top income can rise by millions.


Quote: FTSE 100 directors enjoy 27pc pay rises [during recession]


So even in that range alone, inequality has worsened.


Now think about the poorest 40% range of population – similar will happen there.


The bottom of 40% range raises little or not at all (with poorest staying in poverty) whilst the top of the 40% range rises much more e.g. minimum wage.


Inequality has worsened in this range also.


The outcome being that both ranges may have increased – but undeniably so has inequality - the gap between bottom and top of population most.


So at the end of this you could see ‘inequality’ using the Palma has improved, purely because of the bottom range total rising more – a statistical con.


Just because the lower range total (with increased inequality) has risen more than the upper range total (with increased inequality) - they say 'inequality' has improved.


What The Flip - are people really that thick?


These people are intellectual professors of mathematics and economics - I mean, you understand and you think they do not?


That is how the deception in similar comparison inequality measures work e.g. S80/S20.


Very intelligent people have been been told how to do something simple and have not understood what they are doing – which is unbelievable to me.


The public are all treated as though they would never be able to understand or work this out, like imbeciles.


It is most important to note - we are not taught to think for ourselves - just taught to think the same way as others - why lies continue.




UK ONS and other countries statistics offices measure inequality with Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient - it is a confidence trick


FACT: Not only is the Gini rubbish measuring inequality within a country of poor to rich, it is also useless for comparing one country to another country.


The Gini coefficient is a confidence trick to hide the ever widening gap between each countries powerful rich families and the rest of the population. It also clearly hides millions of poor families, many who are in poverty. Obviously, nobody wants to admit they know this. Using frequency distribution to hide the wealthy, it only compares the poor to average income - not comparing the millions of poorest families on lowest income to the richest.


I use the analogy of measuring inequality with a rubber band in my video - inequality widens getting worse - yet the measure reads the same. Close your eyes and think about it for a minute, does the gap between the rich and poor ever get narrower? Wake up - they treat us like uneducated plebs! This is fact and not mere opinion being written here - some don't know the difference.


An example of stretch is during 2012 the FTSE director's got a 27% rise and the millions of people on minimum pay got 1.8% - the rich got £100,000's per annum, the poor got just over £200. In 2013 CEO's got 21% and those on minimum pay got 1.9% with similar sort of cash rise in the 'pay packet'.


In the video I made the following chart for those bad at maths and to provide undeniable proof for corrupt people like those at the ONS. How can (an ideal?) country be the same inequality as the UK? How is somebody in a country like this be living in the same inequality as us in UK?


Wouldn't a country with a more even spread of six times income differential not have much less inequality than ours? Why has this the same Gini then?


Image description
Image description


The IFS are also part of the 'problem' - they support the deception.


Here is a chart which shows 'income inequality' going down as well as up - this when incomes diverge and inequality gets worse.


http://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/ER_JC_2013.pdf


Image description


Wealth and Taxation


Something else you are being conned about - the rich are not being squeezed - we are.


The financial wealth of the country has built up in the rich because ALL governments have helped them by squeezing the working class.


Workers have little or nothing left after tax and essential bills. Governments know tax is greater burden on the them but lie about squeezing the rich.


BTW: You hear government propaganda about richest 1% paying 27% of income tax - they feel very sorry for this 'poor' 1% (themselves or friends).


It is because fat-cats are the ones with up to 30% compound rises year on year - whilst holding down pay of workers who made them all that money.


It is insulting because they use exploitation of workers as propaganda against them. Pay workers these big rises and they will pay more tax also.


Image description


BREXIT - was for the sake of our grandchildren - our children already have had their lives made worse for them.

 

Many have blamed us 'old people'  for voting out - but many of us 'old people' have seen what is happening over the decades.

I am still amazed we had more than 5% of the population voting to stay who *still* cannot see the problems getting worse in the EU or that us remaining makes our problems worse (staying in wasn't solving these problems).

BTW: I never blame immigrants who are only doing what many of us would do (go to better country) - or say they caused the problems - for those that slur & misrepresent me.

We have made our kids lose out being in the EU, as firms and government would rather take skilled workers from a vast supply of immigrants than train British young adults.

The times we heard stupid people say, "We wouldn't have the NHS if it wasn't for immigration" - government treat you like morons and lied about not being able to get Brits to be doctors (they restricted training). NHS lied about Brits not wanting to nurse and are taking trained nurses from poorer countries (in & out of EU), while turning down tens of thousands of young Brits.
This is why we have to leave the 'single market' with free movement and seriously restrict points system with critical examination of each applicant.


The EU is an anti-democratic scam - allowing poorer incompatible countries to join. We were never going to flood Poland - though many of our jobs have gone there.

Cameron lied with his "tens of thousands" - it was not achievable - which the press did not warn about - yet they did about Brexit lies e.g. £350m to the NHS (also wrong).

It is important to note that the EU want Turkey +others to join, the latest confirmation was March 2016. Even if these countries do not join soon, they all want EU expansion. Also, this refugee problem that they cannot handle is tiny to what is to come with world overpopulation.

People only have to look at what is happening: skilled & semi-skilled Brit wages held down - less housing & jobs available to Brits - Pension Pyramid Scam
 (immigrants get old too, as do their children, grandchildren...) with care it will cost £trillions - worsening food/water/energy security - many more crimes - greater congestion - more NHS overstretch...


The financial (Mars bar) gain is fiddled as it does not include all costs e.g. crime - also false argument anyway because it could be Brits making this money.

Even if we build 100,000 homes every year it still would not be enough for 300,000+ extra immigration - also we know young Brits cannot get social housing any more.

The Tories will likely take advantage - but they can be voted out. Even if half the Remainians scare-mongering is true - we had to leave. Can you all *honestly* not see that?

The bosses do not train any more to anything like they used to. In early 1970's, I was trained by EITB (Engineering Industry Training Board) as a Mechanical Engineering Technician Trainee - and later as a Telecommunications Technician Trainee with PYE Telecom.

1964 -Engineering Industry Training Board
The EITB had the power to impose a financial training levy on employers over a certain size. Employers who could prove a good track record of training activity could be granted exemption from most of the levy.

Corrupt governments would rather give skilled jobs to foreign workers than train our British kids up to higher standards.


WARNING - corrupt politicians still want this cheap skilled immigrant labor - so we do not train young British workers, even now we are out of the EU.


BTW: We can control seasonal work: "More than 98% of those coming to the UK through a previous Seasonal Agricultural Workers scheme returned home."

 

 


IRAQ WAR


Authorities and media lie - you are all being brainwashed. In fact 'fake news' was already here - for example, try deny this:


Chilcot was a cover-up - he lied when saying it was "flawed intelligence", allowing Blair to say he "trusted the intelligence".

I knew the inquiry would pivot on this point - the authorities clearly do not want to prosecute and will allow the guilty to go free.

However, the truth is Tony Blair got John Scarlett and JIC to alter the intelligence - so it was in fact 'falsified intelligence' and not flawed.

It is on record the cabal changed the wording and removed caveats to achieve the desired outcome - to deceive parliament and public.

For example, "
MAY BE ABLE to deploy chemical or biological weapons" was changed to "ARE ABLE to deploy chemical or biological weapons".


(You can see Google has only around thirty sites reporting this fact - some are mine - proof perhaps that authorites do not want to prosecute?)

Analogy: You are seriously ill, ATOS may say that you ARE ABLE to do something to fail you in the All Work Test and to rob you of legal entitlement.


I wrote for years that Blair would merely be heavily criticised in the latest cover-up for an 'error of judgement' - his 'mistake' - to make the inquiry look like they are being more critical than in the past. The JIC all would know they should not make the evidence for invasion stronger - it was no mistake.


If bad people killed or mutilated up to a million British men, women, children and babies by illegal invasion, we *all* would want them to stand trial - true?


Finally, the truth is out - though nobody held to account by corrupt authorities: The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war was designed to “avoid blame” and reduce the risk that individuals and the government could face legal proceedings, newly released documents reveal.


Who cares about all the poor innocents murdered by Bush and Blair - not our governments - thus acting as recruiting sergeants for ISIS.


Imagine the terrible grief if your child was killed - these poor souls were just as precious to their parents - they deserve justice.


Iraq dead baby





Privatisation: have you still not realised the truth?


There is this man on £4.1m in charge of British Gas who has hiked customers electricity prices up by 12.5% - well, he can afford it.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/01/british-gas-hikes-electricity-prices-centrica-energy-bills


We are still with original suppliers - because privatisation was illegal fraud and you shouldn't have to chase around looking for cheapest deal.


That it was fraud is a *fact* - you were sold your own property and they did not explain about their new fiduciary duty to screw you for profit.


Fraud by false representation, Fraud by failing to disclose information and Fraud by abuse of position - look it up if you don't believe me.


Police have a duty to return stolen/defrauded property without paying compensation to those who have handled this stolen property.


We should get our property back and be getting the cheapest energy as a right of your ownership of these industries.



Below is the old site - whole site is under reconstruction - sorry for the mess - it was more of a scrapbook of thoughts:


Garry Anderson ~ critical thinker

If your judgement or opinion does not fit ALL the facts then it is not the facts that are wrong.

Info for intellectually insignificant politicians (those that think they fool us).

Every problem can be solved until it is proven that it cannot be.

My personal philosophy.

 

So, what is a critical thinker? It means, amongst other things, having good logic ability. How is any of my thoughts here wrong? Just two examples:


1. It was reported in the media at the end of 1999 that ICANN stated, "every word in a typical English-language dictionary is already registered" in the .com TLD after many millions of domains had gone. I knew from that statement what to look for and registered skilful.com as my new personal domain right away (and skilled.org). It was not simply because only 23% of Brits can spell it.


 2. I also discovered this year the solution to consumer confusion for registered trademarks on the internet i.e. name.class.country.reg e.g. barclays.bank.uk.reg. The 'experts' at UN WIPO said they were stumped for an answer - even though it was self-evident. See my site wipo.org.uk (reg'd Jan 2000) and my complaint - not connected with UN wipo.org!



What possible explaination could there be for our government and the ONS saying inequality has improved back down to 1986 levels? Is this not a lie? Since then the rich have been compounding large pay rises up to 30% year on year and our poorest now have to use food banks.

Why were the ONS evasive and not confirm or deny my findings? Could it possibly be that the measure they use (Gini coefficient) is a confidence trick to hide an ever widening gap - could it?
Look at my video above and see how it was done. Anybody with GCSE maths can understand.


This worldwide con job under-reports inequality between the privileged rich families and millions of poor families in every country. The media stay silent.


Anyhow, calm down Garry, it's not good for you. Forgive me, I come from a poor background, born in Liverpool 1954, and know just how these families suffer. We should have a much fairer (more equal) society by now, with no poverty in our rich country. In case you've not guessed - I am a socialist.


These are a few of my thoughts on things that seem very obvious to me. More of a jotter than a website. However, these are Important things, like the biggest pyramid scam ever - governments saying we need a lot of immigration to pay for old age pensioners. Are they really that stupid? Also we all know that problems get worse with mass immigration, not better e.g. housing and job shortages. I can guess most of your replies, please see below.


Another; the financial authorities. Surely you know about the big cover-up. Each time there is a 'mis-selling' scandal you seriously have never asked yourself, "Why is mis-selling not fraud?". We are not all idiots, we know the difference between when something is sold by mistake and when there is evidence that something is sold by deception and hiding facts. Individuals that commit fraud are criminals - as are individuals in authority that cover up crime. With a cover-up the latest financial crisis was inevitable, as is the next. There will be more financial disasters as authorities continue to protect guilty people - they aid and abet crime. We were easily able to win an official complaint against the FSA/FCA for their evasion and malfeasance.


People in the authorities, including the FCA & SFO, are crooks. They help criminals evade capture. Rather than jail those that defraud customer they allow them to escape, giving the firm fines which are then passed on to their customers. Customers get robbed twice with authorities help.


Two of the greatest threats to society - what future for our country if we cannot control over-population or financial meltdown?


BTW: I was against these illegal wars - Afghanistan was using a (deliberately) failed illegal extradition as pretext for war - Iraq was falsified intelligence - see what I say about those. We should be sending farming/ irrigation equipment and saving people - not dropping bombs and killing people.

 

Papworth 1997
Image description

 

We have evidence Barclays defrauded us - and the authorities have been protecting them. This was not just us however and there is the wider picture to consider. Including you and your family.


<- This is me in 1997 just before I was forced to retire, before I began our fight against Barclays, financial authorities and the Serious Fraud Office. The tubes are a lot worse under the covers. I was trying to smile for my 11 yearold daughter, Faye, taking the picture. I was thinking this would be the last time she saw me. I later put the annotated picture on my website to warn others about the under-reporting of elective surgery going wrong. The 'HELP PLEASE' is added now.


First things first, this is the internet after all; how do you know this is not a spurious accusation by somebody of dubious intelligence? We are making serious claims e.g. that the authorities cover up mass fraud by Barclays and others. So here is proof of cover up; an official complaint we won against FSA for corrupt behaviour in protecting Barclays. More details here.


Every time I wrote to Barclays or authorities I ended up in a ball of unbearable pain on the floor, which is why there are gaps when contacting them. I needed a big break - I knew the horrific agony of going back for more. You do not return willingly to a beating. It was like my chest and side were being ripped out. We thought it was the damaged nerve bundle from the op. The two <- pictures at bottom were sent to the pain clinic after injections for the damaged nerve bundle. On the left picture you can see three scars where the hosepipes went in for body cavity juices.


Things actually got much worse fighting them and I was lucky to survive again. There was a growing aneurysm which eventually had to burst due to the repeated stress of 'battle'. It also split my artery (chest to stomach) causing another large aneurysm which is now getting bigger every year, with more serious complications. You could likely expect to fight any bad people that defraud you, but not reputable banks and never the financial authorities - our 'protectors'.


How can you help? This is not about helping me, I had to give up, my health is too bad. The FOS falsified our complaint in 2013 by removing  essential key points, exactly like Barclays. The FOS would not rule despite admitting that it was within their time limit. As Barclays told them to do. The FOS chief executive with whom I communicated, Natalie Ceeney, left to work for HSBC.


This is about helping my children and yours. Faye has her own lovely daughter now. The reason the UK is in great trouble now is because of the authorities corruption e.g. ask them what the difference is between fraud and 'mis-selling'. This is why it will happen again and again. Please help by warning your friends and family about the corrupt authorities. For the sake of all your grandchildren too. If the authorities admit they 'lack integrity' then what is the point of them?

 


IRAQ Legacy

 

I would say there is a complete lack of intelligence on this subject (no pun), but I know many lie. Some idiots think that all these problems are nothing to do with us or America. It was admitted by President Obama to Vice News March 2015: "ISIL is direct outgrowth of Al-Qaida in Iraq which grew out of our invasion which is an example of unintended consequences which is why we should generally aim before we shoot" - he should have said illegal invasion.

https://news.vice.com/video/president-obama-speaks-with-vice-news


The vile London bombers and Lee Rigby killers tell us that our murder of all those hundreds of thousands innocent civilians caused this radicalisation - it is cowardice not to admit this fact.

How likely is it that they would have been radicalised had we not killed all those innocent Muslims in illegal war - with nothing here before then.

This is not excusing terrorism - or justifying it - merely explaining why they attack. I put that in because some like to misrepresent what I write - many know I am against terrorism - Muslim or Western. Causality - read up on it. The security services warned Tony Blair an "invasion would lead to more terrorism" - did the security services justify the London bombers actions?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/ex-mi5-chief-tony-blair-was-warned-iraq-invasion-would-fuel-terror-6493687.html


Tony Blair is directly responsible for the worst atrocity committed by our government since the end of World War 2. This is truly a most heinous crime.


Imagine just for a moment that we in the UK were invaded using falsified intelligence. Not wrong intelligence - that is the obvious big lie (why the flip do intelligent people comply) - simply altered and exagerated with caveats removed e.g. "MAY BE ABLE to deploy chemical or biological weapons" to "ARE ABLE to deploy chemical or biological weapons". It 'may be possible' is not the same as 'they can' - nor is 'intelligence suggestion' same as fact.


Let us say the invading country are responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 British people (up to 1 million). As many innocent men, women, children and babies that were killed in Iraq. Many more were maimed. You surely would want justice for all those killed and maimed then, wouldn't you?


If your friends or sons and daughters (or any of your family) had been slaughtered using lies to do so - sure, you know you would.


The Intelligence report was a work of fiction, when it was supposed to be a true story. This work was a collaboration by known authors. The ICC at The Hague is biased and clearly a tool of Western imperialism. They are very selective about who is prosecuted - primarily those in African countries.


The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

 

The Chilcot Inquiry will be another Public Relations exercise - damage limitation. It will be more critical to say they did a good job - to pretend it was not another whitewash. But it will be - nobody will be prosecuted for illegal war.


Quote: He (Blair) told Chilcot: "In a sense what I was saying to America was: 'Look' – and by the way I am absolutely sure this is how George Bush took it – 'whatever the political heat, if I think this is the right thing to do I am going to be with you. I am not going to back out because the going gets tough. On the other hand, here are the difficulties and this is why I think the UN route is the right way to go".

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/29/chilcot-inquiry-iraq-war-new-year


Obviously Blair knew Bush would not go down the peaceful UN route - he also certainly knew though Bush would though try to persuade the UN to use his violent route for regime change. Blair knew Bush wanted regime change - which is an illegal excuse for invasion.

 

Goldsmiths Legal Advice

I originally wrote this analysis many years ago, to lay down the gauntlet for fools that said invasion of Iraq was legal and our PM is not a war criminal.

Some folks truthfully believe that there were loopholes for us to invade - not saying much for morality of government using loopholes to kill people.

I use Goldsmiths own written legal advice to explain, as no country can legally invade another without legal justification to do so.

Even a legal novice should be able to see through Goldsmiths lies and deceptions - in which he aided and abetted Blair (along with Scarlett and others).

We all know that UN resolutions were the only supposed LEGAL excuse they could find to try to justify the removal of Saddam i.e. could not use regime change etc.

One quote: "The Attorney General had concluded that authority for the use of force in Iraq was contained within existing UN resolutions and that another was not needed, Mr Straw said in reply to an emergency question from the Opposition."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1539816,00.html - sorry link now dead.

Indeed, it did not seem to matter how many Iraqis they killed in doing so - Blair would not give any upper limit when he would admit it was the wrong thing to do.

Keep in mind when reading this, that the UK signed up to UN1441 and are actually legally bound to this agreement.

First and most importantly of all - fact beats even 'expert opinion' - all lawyers know this.

Goldsmith (the Attorney General and Blair’s pal) certainly knows this - yet you will see he uses his opinion to falsify his excuses to overrule facts.

Please note the difference between his use of opinions and the actual FACT.

So – my comments start with G> - everything following numbers 26-31 is from Goldsmiths written legal advice – and anything beginning with 'quote' is from relevant UN Resolution:

26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides. A key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the cease-fire is destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that situation, it would be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because the Council has predetermined the issue. Public statements, on the other hand, say otherwise.

G> He has failed to explain (either in the detail or summation) what exactly is unclear in UN1441 that would give countries permission for unilateral action - even in an unclear way - that is a FACT.

G> The key question he makes is a sham ("whether there is in truth a need for an assessment") - because it is a FACT - whether it is needed or not - UN1441 actually calls for an assessment.

G> He is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception.

27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. I have already advised that I do not believe that such a resolution need be explicit in its terms. The key point is that it should establish that the Council has concluded that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.

G> Not only the safest - but the only legal course using UN resolutions - because it is a FACT that is what UN1441 requires a further resolution - as per item 12.

G> Quote: "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"

G> Again he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception.

28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.

G> False - an outright lie.

G> FACT: UN1441 specifically recalls all prior resolutions - including UN678 - which now requires the UN "convene ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance".

G> This gives UN1441 primacy over UN678 - like your latest 'Last Will and Testement' - UN1441 now requires UN to decide.

G> Even if it did not - UN678 applied "all necessary means" only to the demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait anyway - "to restore international peace and security in the area Kuwait". As Iraq army are no longer in Kuwait, their argument is rubbish - it is not even a moot point.

G> Quote: "Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,"

G> Yet again he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception.

29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.

G> False - an outright lie.

G> Nothing in UN1441 gives authorisation to use force under any circumstances - it recalls UN678 and now requires UN decision on next step.

G> FACT: UN1441 specifically requires the UN to make that judgement on what to do next - here it is again as stated in item 12.

G> Quote: "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"

G> Yet once more he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception - starting to see a pattern?

30. In reaching my conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that on a number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have participated in military action on the basis of advice from my predecessors that the legality of the action under international law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with the view. I judge that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, and considering the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4 and 12 do requ1re a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678. But equally I consider that the counter view can be reasonably maintained. However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as great as it is today.

G> Opinion is not the same as fact - and especially not a "reasonably arguable" opinion.

G> FACT: Even if a previous war was illegal - illegality cannot be used as the basis of starting new wars.

G> You cannot use an argument that you got away with murder last time - so you can murder with impunity again.

G> Yet again he tries to revive the authorisation in resolution 678 for "all necessary means" - but we know for a FACT that UN1441 stops that and only applies to getting Iraq army out of Kuwait anyway.

G> Goldsmith admits, "a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court [he] would be confident that the court would agree with the view" - because his argument is rubbish.

31. The analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the Security Council by the UN Charter. So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". The legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so, eg the discussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time."

G> Vetos are valid even if "unreasonable" e.g. the many examples were the American veto could be considered "unreasonable".

G> He even admits that "there are no grounds for arguing that an 'unreasonable veto' would entitle" them to invade.

G> He says that if a second resolution fails - they need to "[RE]consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time" - where is that review?

G> It can be seen by this analysis that Goldsmith does not have a legal case for invasion and I welcome people to show where the scrutiny is wrong.

Links.
UN1441: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Goldsmiths Advice: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=91
UN678: http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-678.html

Here is Anthony Lester QC's analysis of it:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/27/Iraq_legal_advice_.pdf

Some have said, 'Blair really believed that Iraq had WMD. It was just the poor quality of the evidence. Actually, x number of Inquiries found him innocent'.

 

Firstly - I think it possible he convinced himself that Iraq had some WMD (likely field munitions) - but that is of little importance. The overiding fact is that they altered intelligence to deceive Parliament and public about the quality of evidence for invasion - even if he really believed Iraq had WMD.

 

If no Inquiry found that Blair and chums had altered the evidence to get their way then they were not thorough, actually they are guilty of hiding this fact.

 

Even if our Prime Minister really believed the 7/7 London bombings (or another) were committed by Iran - he cannot remove the 'qualitative nature' of intelligence to invade Iran and kill millions - can he?

 

 

Government Surveilance

 

Or Stasi 2.0 as some call it. This is all a scam, these are not good people, they lie and deceive you - don't be fooled folks.


Here is proof - as if it were needed - that all the surveillance in the world will not stop determined foes.


http://www.wired.com/2014/06/protestors-launch-a-135-foot-blimp-over-the-nsas-utah-data-center/


I have long been concerned about this problem and wrote this in March 2004 (on slashdot) - and before this even:

Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?

This is a post that I have used many times before :-)

Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.

It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?

Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!

Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.

INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.

It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".

This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).

This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.

So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?

It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.

As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.

Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.

The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.

They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.

The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.

e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".

Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?

Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?

No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?

They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.

Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?

Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.

In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.

Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?

Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."

The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).

It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.

Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece, wrote by another who did a better job of explaining than I could:

Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.

The government will be watching all you do.

You will be good people now - won't you?

Or else!

I know what is possible. I also know from my own experience with a government department that they will abuse personal information. In my last job (at one of the largest food manufacturing plants in Europe) my responsibilities included stand-alone and networked data capture systems (not solely) - and the automation of turning large amounts of data into information. These were reports on analysis of the data for all levels of management - to any amount of detail. I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100317&cid=8554109

 

Additional: Some ignorant people, have wrote things like, "just don't put your personal fears and hopes and deeply personal revelations online for the whole world to see". They thought I was just writing about social media. Obviously you know I was also writing about your searches for information on things about your personal life - or health problems - not just your fantasies (sexual or otherwise).


Terrorism


I really have trouble believing these scares - entirely the fault of authorities using lies and propaganda. For example - we officially had 4,000 dangerous blood-thirsty terrorists in the UK. 2,000 that we knew about and another 2,000 that we do not know about - according to former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens in May 2007. 2,000 more that *we don't know about* - why not make the number much scarier - say it is the tip of iceburg?


Yes - unbelievable is it not - they all must be the most lazy or incompetent terrorists on the whole planet - not to attack us on a weekly basis. Still - they have to do something to make us agree to mass surveillance and have our privacy taken away. Like I wrote above - the terrorists would have to be complete imbeciles now since NSA whistleblower Snowden to use the internet or phone and not use couriers or face to face communication instead.


You are much more likely to be struck by lightning than injured with a terrorist bomb - how much time off your life do you waste worrying about that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23621324


Where are the court cases of those they say are stopped? So sleep easy - don't worry about being hit by lightning - I mean being bombed by terrorists.


Revenge Terror Attacks


e.g. quote: British travellers warned they could be target of revenge terror attacks

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/31/british-travellers-warned-foreign-office-revenge-isis


Causality - we all know about it. This could be about any attack past, present or future.


What idiot thinks that our mass murder and maiming of hundreds of thousands innocent men, women, children and babies will not cause revenge attacks from mad nutters (like Blair) e.g. London bombing?


The beheading of a hostage is a vile act - but what moron would think it less worse than our sending a missile which kills a dozen kids.


Or if it blows parts of their bodies off and leaves them in agonising pain.


Just because you are physically seperate from it does not make their murder a tiny bit better. Though many bad people like to pretend.


BTW: It is not the anti-war peoples responsibility to make other suggestions to get us out the mess the war-mongers got us into.


###


Cameron backs Pickles’ letter to Muslim leaders

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/david-cameron-backs-eric-pickles-letter-muslim-leaders


Although Cameron would have wrote the letter thus:


Dear Muslims


It is your fault we have terrorists - not ours for killing and maiming a million innocent men, women, children and babies with an illegal war.


My fellow leaders and I marched for the twelve people killed in France last week.


We wouldn't do it for all those we killed in Iraq because they don't matter.


Regards,


Mr Cameron



###


God and Life


I am agnostic - but have posited the possibility of 'God' - the creator of universe and life - being more an intelligent 'living' force than a living being - which most people take 'Him' as (even atheists in their denial).


Intelligent as in following certain rules to create life (like you following a plan) and not thinking as such e.g. doing things on a whim. All the parameters to make the universe and life had to be exact e.g. the universe could not have been created had the force of big bang been more - it would have come apart too fast to make galaxies and solar systems - or collapsed if too weak. Same thing with gravity. There are supposedly 200 known factors that had to be 'just right'. This can be seen on the minute scale also.


Quote: Microbes discovered by deepest marine drill analysed


The team found that microbes, despite having no light, no oxygen, barely any water and very limited nutrients, thrived in the cores. Elizabeth Trembath-Reichert, from the California Institute of Technology, who is part of the team that carried out the research, said: "We keep looking for life, and we keep finding it, and it keeps surprising us as to what it appears to be capable of."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30489814


Methane on the Red Planet is intriguing because here on Earth, 95% of the gas comes from microbial organisms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30456664


BTW: athests are being closed-minded. No, I'm not agnostic on human fantasies like fairies and Flying Spaghetti Monster, just question the possibilities of the origins of life, universe and everything.Why could 'dark matter' not have already existed before the 'big bang' and the universe spread into it?


###


Capitalism and Socialism


It is successful capitalism until it fails - then it needs socialism to bail it out - proven with the crash.

Capitalism is a corrupt system evolved out of greed and power - not one that I would choose.


###


Job Creator Myth

The REALITY: does a factory get created with jobs as a main reason - or is hundreds of jobs gone if it can be done cheaper by machine?

Jobs are used only if necessity - 'job creators' do not want an expense that has wages, holidays, sickness, pensions, NI, can strike or have babies...

As for the 'Wealth Creator' myth - guess who they create wealth for - themselves - government applaud greed (for obvious reasons).

I am not saying we should be Luddites or that there is no economic gain to having new factories - just not lie about the greed - why they start business.


The customers are the ones that pay for these jobs, machinery and profits - it is a symbiotic realitionship - they are more the 'job creators'.


###


New Labour & Socialism


Quote: He (Cameron) also accused Labour of betraying its traditional values and no longer representing working people.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/28/david-cameron-makes-personal-attack-on-ed-miliband-and-sneering-socialists


Flip - he really hit home with New Labour there - I'll give him a point for that. New Labour are Tory Lite - another crime by Blair.


I am a socialist - and we were right about having national services in the hands of the people - not greedy fat-cats whose fiduciary duty is to make as much profit as possible from us.


The rest of you are idiots to want privatisation and the sale of public housing that should be used for people who cannot afford to buy a home.


Sorry, socialism isn't about selling houses - it is about helping people live in homes - especially if they cannot afford to buy one.


The public should not subsidise your private housing should they?


NB. If "Labour... no longer representing working people" and (by that statement) the Tories know they do not either, then who are representing us?


Many have a rose-tinted version of history with Tony Blair - this is even despite the fact he destroyed Labour. So much so that Thatcher called New Labour her "greatest achievement" – and still these foolish New Labour MP's do not get it!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/making-history.html


New Labour follow stupid capitalist neoliberal Tory policies like selling council housing - they cannot even see the simple fact that council housing should not be sold as it drives up housing benefits, rents and governments to make more cuts in benefit to those in need.


The idea came realised by Thatcher's government - they not only hoped to buy votes - but also yoke the workers like bosses used to with a tied cottage and also remove cheap rented social housing for rich landlords to exploit.


I will state yet again - privatisation was a fraud - selling to the public what they already owned. Do you want them to sell more property that you own - your car or home perhaps?


Police have a duty to return stolen property without compensation - so you can "magically undo a mistake on that scale" as one person said to me.


The Tories were right about the fact that New Labour helped ruin the country – but they fail to say it is because they followed these Tory policies and allowed the financial industry free reign to defraud us.


###


Death Penalty


I am against the death penalty even for mass murderering war crims like Blair and Bush - who killed more innocent people than the vile 911 terrorist. It is most perverse and sick to say 'murder is wrong and only terrible people murder' and then use murder yourself.


###


The following subjects are work in progress:


All subjects to be expanded. Please forgive mix of fonts - see my skilled.org for a better example of poor website design (it was the old skilful.com site).

 

 

Are the Financial Authorities Corrupt?

 

Firstly - how do you know this is not a spurious claim by somebody of dubious intelligence?


Here is proof that our accusation of cover-up by financial regulators is valid. I won this official complaint against the ill-fated FSA for corrupt behaviour in defending Barclays against our claim they defrauded lots of their customers, including ourselves. Possibly a criminal act by FSA and definately evasion of responsibilities as it actively aids and abets culpable/ criminal activity. Please do not be taken in - rebranding and changing their name to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) does not mean the dogma or the people are different. They perhaps believe that if there is no criminal prosecutions then that will help 'market confidence'. This is the main reason why the banks crashed and the finance industry are allowed to get away with with mass 'mis-selling' (fraud) to the public and why the financial industry can never be trusted. The financial authorities aid and abet corrupt firms with cover-up. There has to be prosecutions and jail so they know there is real personal danger in acting wrongfully, fines are ultimately paid by others.


This is ongoing (2013) with Barclays and the FOS both altering our customer complaint. The behaviour of the SFO was just as corrupt.


Justice delayed is justice denied.


If the financial regulators 'lack integrity' then what is the point of them exactly - and who else do you know that has proved this?


Barclays Fraud



Head over to WoolwichSucks.co.uk to see what Barclays, the Financial Services Authority (rebranded to the FCA), Serious Fraud Office and Financial Ombudsman Service have been up to. It is why we have big 'mis-selling' scams and the banking crash - with their pretence of financial regulation.

 

You can make your own mind up from the documented evidence there. This involves recent activity by Barclays and the FOS (2013) - also it goes right to the top - not just the staff. It was admitted that Endowment Mortgages are "unfit for purpose" by Walter Merricks in 2001 (when head of the FOS). The financial authorities only warned us of this when loss was imminent - yet they must have known years before this. But they kept quiet - guess why.


They will certainly all deny that they acted criminally. What they cannot deny with the evidence is the fact they were evasive and tried to 'win' with attrition by refusing to address the arguments that were put to them. Fact is different from mere opinion, especially when shown in their own communications.


Whilst authorities aid and abet by protecting the corrupt we will have more financial disasters. Remember what happened the last time we had a government- sponsored pensions revolution in the 1980's? What about the latest government- sponsored pensions revolution. The 'Workplace Pensions' - the "We're all in". All in what - is it the latest pension 'mis-selling' scandal? Given the financial industries record, do you have any idea?


Whilst on pensions. Regarding George Osborne 2014 pensions overhaul allowing people to cash in their pension funds. One quote, "Chancellor insists pensioners should be trusted with their finances". Insincere twonk - do you honestly believe he thinks that. This stupid policy should be reversed.


It is Tory madness. This is as bad as when they sold council houses - a public asset to be used to home those on low pay. Now we have private landlords making a fortune and housing benefit we cannot afford. This will end in a financial bloodbath - worse than any mis-selling (fraud) scam in the past.


Supporters are:
1. Deliberate naive about millions of peoples ability to be able to properly invest in adequate provision for their future.
2. Deliberate naive about the finance industry honesty - to not 'mis-sell' financial products/ services to pensioners (defraud).
3. Deliberate naive about personal financial advisors selling investments which reward the client best and not the advisor.


Supporters want to make a better deal for themselves so are willing to allow millions of old people to be defrauded. Unfortunately that is considered a perfectly acceptable Tory (selfish) viewpoint. How it is reasonable that people can be sacrificed for financial gain of others I am at a loss to understand.

 

Even so-called 'intelligent' people will be persuaded that they can do better, as with 'mis-selling' of endowment mortgages. I was one of them.


If the problem is annuities then tackle that. Government should not abdicate their responsibility, chuck the pension pots at people and say 'There, now bog off and get on with it'. Government actually 'robbed' and ruined our pensions in 1997 - up until then they were doing very well. They have a duty to put things right and return the hundreds of billions 'stolen'. Chancellor Gordon Brown knew the possible consequences. He was not ignorant of the risks.

 

BTW: Do you know the difference between mis-selling and fraud? Neither it seems do Barclays, FSA, SFO or FOS - they were all asked many times. Ask yourself; "Why it is not Fraud by false representation or Fraud by failing to disclose information or Fraud by abuse of position? Why do the financial authorities give corrupt firms large fines - which are then passed onto you the customer or shareholder - instead of putting the guilty people in jail?". Would jail not be even better than personal fines (money come from you), which over the coming years they will more than get back? See the Fraud Act 2006.

 

Why do these people in authority not know jailing the guilty individuals is a bigger deterrent to 'mis-selling' (defrauding) the public?


In fact the Crown Prosecution Service say this:


8. Prosecution of a company should not be seen as a substitute for the prosecution of criminally culpable individuals such as directors, officers, employees, or shareholders. Prosecuting such individuals provides a strong deterrent against future corporate wrongdoing. Equally, when considering prosecuting individuals, it is important to consider the possible liability of the company where the criminal conduct is for corporate gain.


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions


On that specific point - can somebody please remind me - I have looked everywhere and cannot find the answer. With the banking collapse, why has nobody been prosecuted? They knew they were gambling with customers money. It was the same criminal reckless behaviour that 'rogue traders' have been jailed for: Kweku Adoboli - Nick Leeson - Matthew Taylor - or are the bankers being protected?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/20/ubs-trader-kweku-adoboli-jailed-fraud

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/2/newsid_2518000/2518423.stm

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/06/us-goldman-trader-sentencing-idUSBRE9B50XQ20131206

 

Bankers should be licenced with wages and bonuses capped - else no licence. It is a lie that they could not find anybody good to do the job for £250,000 (proposed maximum for fair wage legislation). Even paying millions is no guarantee they will be any good - as the recent disaster proved beyond doubt. It is a lie they need to pay millions to get the skill. Good riddence if they have insatiable greed and want more than anybody else in UK - they should go.


The deception continues. Quote: RBS plan for 200% bonuses blocked by Treasury body - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27154184

This is not a massive great victory for the public - it is minor propaganda by our corrupt government to pretend that the public are being looked after.

These bankers are still overpaid and get massive bonuses - and even Barclays bankers just got higher bonuses despite a 30% fall in profits.

And worst of all - still nobody in UK has been held to account for crimes that 'rogue traders' have been imprisoned for - irresponsible gambling with other peoples money. Not one person has spent a single day in jail for destroying the financial state of our country. Government continue to protect them.


As further proof - of government helping criminals escapes:


Quote: A new offence of aiding and abetting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance is expected to be included in the budget next month, George Osborne has said in his first comprehensive parliamentary response to the HSBC scandal.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/feb/23/jack-straw-and-malcolm-rifkind-respond-to-cash-for-access-allegations-politics-live-blog


There does not need a new law - we have one already, called aiding and abetting. This is a false excuse to let the guilty off. Government are complicit.


Quote: Assisting or Encouraging Crime


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/inchoate_offences/