29 April 2014

How did they do that, part 201



I feel sorry for Max Clifford. I didn't really expect a guilty verdict because living abusers, or those living individuals accused of abuse, seem to have a better chance of a 'not guilty' verdict than the dead ones. So I feel a little sorry for Max Clifford mainly because he is reaping a bitter harvest as a consequence of having pissed so many people off in the past.

David Mellor, one of Clifford's earliest tabloid victims, wasn't exactly gloating this morning but he didn't hide his satisfaction at seeing Clifford go down.

Unlike William Roach, Clifford didn't seem to have a parade of worthies ready to stand up and tell the court what a solid, dependable, upright, reliable chap he was. In fact, support for Clifford was notably absent from the start and that was unusual given his celebrity status.

So, in Clifford's case, maybe everyone knew and they decided to stay away and that is, once again, the real tragedy of instances like Clifford and the rest. People knew or if they didn't know then they suspected…………and they did nothing.

Clifford may well be 'guilty as charged' but so is everyone else who stood by and did nothing.

28 April 2014

Dodging the bullet?


The story this morning about the BBC's Panorama programme's investigation into Bernie Ecclestone's tax affairs  BBC News - F1's Ecclestone avoided potential £1.2bn tax bill made interesting reading, particularly in the light of his current bribery trial in Germany.

The story suggests that Bernie avoided a potential £1.2Bn tax bill from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and did so by paying them £10M. I know that my maths is pretty ropey but, if those figures are correct, Bernie got away with paying 1% of the sum that HMRC are claimed to have been pursuing. That seems a little generous, don't you think?

But the story does give some credibility to his defence in Germany that the £26M he paid to a banker, Gerhard Gribkowsky, was blackmail money because the banker was going to grass him up to HMRC. But, from Bernie's viewpoint, £26M must have seemed like a gift set against the potential £1.2Bn.

And in all of this, the taxpayer gets stiffed yet again because HMRC maybe could have screwed Bernie for £1.2Bn but they settled for £10M. Great work HMRC.

And when your read further on in the BBC piece you discover that Bernie's divorce from his ex, Slavica Radic, could have been have been part of a massive tax avoidance scheme. Bernie had put his dosh into a trust in Slavica's name which seems to have protected the money from HMRC. Then, when Bernie and Slavica divorce, she makes settlement payments to Bernie which are reputedly in the region of $100M a year. Obviously Bernie is a pretty bright boy, and Slavica seems to be a very compliant ex.

27 April 2014

Bone-us


You have to laugh. Earlier this week we were entertained by George Osborne, you know, the prat who is looking after the economy for his friends in the city, we were entertained by his hugely restrained response to the city wankers at RBS being denied their 200% bonuses. At the same time, we now learn that he won't obstruct similar 200% pay-outs at Lloyds - Osborne's intervention over RBS was cynical and ultimately nonsensical | Business | The Observer

Lets imagine a different scenario - imagine what Osborne would be saying if, say, NHS staff asked for a 3% rise. I'm sure that Osborne would suggest that such a move would be a deathly threat to the 'recovering economy' but the very people who almost destroyed free-market capitalism in 2007/8 get to run away with 200% of their salaries - whilst their employers are being propped up by the taxpayer.

And I'd draw another comparison between city wankers and NHS staff. Say, for example, that I dropped my 200% bonus on my foot and broke a few bones. Where would I go? Probably to A&E where highly trained professionals, operating under huge pressure with less resources than they might like, would probably give me the best medical support that they could provide. Compare that to the city wankers who took everyone's pension pots and came very close to incinerating them, putting the financial institutions on life support (provided by the taxpayer).

Who's worth more?

21 April 2014

How do they do that………...


Last weekend I had the rare experience of reading the Sunday Telegraph and in one of its many sections it carried a review of a recent book by Simon Danczuk and Matthew Baker titled 'Smile for the Camera - the double life of Cyril Smith'. Reading the review reminded me of a piece on a recent Jeremy Vine show where JV, in reference to the same book, wondered how people like Smith got away with their behaviour when it would seem that all too many people knew what he was up to.

Vine then broadcast an interview with a retired police officer who had investigated Smith in the 1980s and was clearly convinced that Smith should have been charged and tried. But, as with Savile, the story took a darker turn because, before this officer's report considered for action, two 'senior officers from another force' turned up and, in effect, confiscated all the relevant material, witness statements, investigation reports, evidence etc etc. These two officers then made it clear that the two investigating officers were to forget all about Smith and his unpleasant peccadilloes. As a consequence, the findings of the investigation never saw the light of day and Smith went on his merry way.

And I am left to wonder how this process works. How does what was clearly a thorough investigation which provides substantial evidence of serious wrongdoing end up being buried? What is the mechanism whereby senior police officers from another force are empowered to cross administrative boundaries to quash an investigation? What is the link between people like Smith and Savile and senior police officers and officers involved with Hillsborough and officers involved with Stephen Lawrence? Is there a common threat of interest that ties these unsavoury individuals together, and if there is, what is that thread?

And when Jeremy Vine asks 'how did they get away with it', it would seem that it was all too easy,  because people who knew simply looked the other way. And they may have looked the other way because, on some level, they knew that people like Savile and Smith and Jaconelli (see Savile/Jaconelli/Corrigan paedophile ring: NYP cover-up continues - Whitby | Real Whitby | Whitby News | North Yorkshire | Whitby | Real Whitby | Whitby News | North Yorkshire) had access to a network of associates who could make things go away.

17 April 2014

Who's glad its vlad?


Putin's sabre rattling in the Ukraine seems to be sending shudders through those parts of eastern Europe which once belonged solidly to the USSR. Clearly governments are beginning to wonder just how far Putin will go in his determined effort to reassert Russia's claim to once again being a global super-power. The annexation of the Crimea is probably only the start of Putin's project.

In the 1980s, Gorbachev introduced Glasnost and Perestroika and that period of transparency allowed him to face up to reality and accept that, at that time, the USSR could not out-spend the USA when it came to defence. He gave up the struggle and that led directly to the break up of the old Soviet Union.  Without command from the centre, elements of the USSR gravitated towards Europe, seeing better opportunities in an alignment with the west rather than with Moscow. At the same time, defence spending came under serious scrutiny because, without an obvious threat from the USSR, how could billions of dollars/pounds/euros be spent on defence?  As a consequence, we've had 20 years of inventing enemies (mainly terrorists of one sort or another) in order to keep our defence contractor's heads above water until, that is, the arrival of Putin and his sabre.

So who's 'glad its vlad'? Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE Systems, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Airbus Group, United Technologies Corporation, Finmeccanica and L-3 Communications would be a good start as these were the top 10 arms manufacturers in the world in 2012. Current events in the Ukraine may be worrying for some of us but they usher in a time of plenty for those businesses that thrive on conflict and instability.