Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Property Upmarket

The scenario is either bizarre or just peculiar when property is involved. To encourage buying, nearly everything else is sold by undercutting through Clearance or Sale or something. Even cars have selling schemes (but exercise care, though). Except property. Depending on where you position yourself as the purchaser or vendor or agent or lender, the attitude to property will shift markedly. The motivation on the potential to make money will probably account for the attitude.

Winners And Losers
Virtual Money

  • Any potential purchaser will attempt to acquire the highest return for the sale of property. This is common sense, but depending on the urgency (or not) to sell could affect the purchase price of a second or third-hand property.
  • The vendor who needs to relocate will almost certainly have to choose between their immediate future and accept losses through negative equity as the value of their property drops. The original lender won't be worried by negative equity, only the property (estate) agent if movement in property slows as potential buyers sit it out and wait. Commissions could dry up.
  • Estate agents have an obvious reason to want house prices to increase. Fixed commission (%age) is greater the more the selling price. And all for doing nothing extra to justify it. Commission on 'arranging' a mortgage will be higher the amount that is advanced. The property market is a captive one, in that the increase in the number of houses is much less than, say, the production of a car. New cars flood the market with second hand cars and the choice is that much greater. The price of such a vehicle will decrease, but the purchase price of a second or third-hand house will almost certainly increase. They are more available than the (scarce) new house. Repossession favours the availability by flooding the market with others' misfortune.
Property recycling

  • Any lender will gain as the higher the buying price, the more the amount to be advanced. The greater the amount lent then the potential interest repayment will be that much greater, especially if the period of the repayment schedule is extended. Interest increases for doing nothing. It just accrues. The more borrowed, the more interest attached payable over a longer period. The banks will soon revert to their old ways once the delaying tactic has run its course. Purchasers (of anything) need to borrow money. This drums up business in the longer term as borrowers will be more compliant and prepared to pay more to acquire a loan. The strategy is quite predictable. And elementary. The banks can afford to play the waiting game especially since taxpayers' (theoretical) money has been used to return to the potential taxpaying borrower with attached cost overheads. For doing absolutely nothing, except creating the financial meltdown in the first place. Incredibly cynical and very crude.
  • The time is not ideal, so the waiting period must happen to create the increased desperation to borrow (entering a longterm contract to buy a property). Banks buying up any loan debt will collect the interest. This all went pear-shape before and it will happen again (déjà vu) within the next few decades as the up-and-coming new very unaware generation is exposed to the same market forces. The next generation produces a cyclical regeneration of tired old ideas. But, if they worked once, they'll work again. The conditioning that coaches the potential new and current generations to buy property continues as though it's the reason for living.
Buy your own home and get yourself
locked into the system

  • Government building plan announcements have gone very quiet. The population continues to 'explode' upon the Earth, but more properties become available as repossessions continue. Where do these ex-owners go?

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Nuclear Submarines: Collision Or Collusion?

There has allegedly been a mid-Atlantic collision between two nuclear submarines. The very deep and wide Atlantic Ocean is not big enough to hold only two state-of-the-art submarines (French and British) without hitting each other. Remarkable. The undetectable stealth-type capability (apparently) means that these two leviathans cannot 'see' each other. The implication here is that this type of submarine is only engaged in the potential launch of one or more of its payload of nuclear missiles and not combat situations against an enemy. Presumably, that would be too dangerous. They cannot detect one another until at the time of a collision.

'British' Trident nuclear deterrent

The collision is alleged since there is no way of verifying such a collision and HMS Vanguard (Trident) is now safely back at Faslane Naval Base away from public scrutiny. All very secret. It makes for a terrific scare scenario to maximise fear. Two 'friendly' nuclear subs supposedly colliding and possibly completely untrue. Maybe it's accurate. The scenario is clearly designed to remind everybody of the potential disaster that could exist (imagery created by force).

Who knows other than those chained by the Official Secrets Act (legally binding even without signing)? It worked for the Apollo hoax in the USA.


Classic Conspiracy Theory demands that the subject is unprovable. The default is that it must be believed before any attempt can be made to debunk. It's a god-like scenario. There is no proof. It is the absolute belief in a concept. In parts it may be plausible. In total less so and completely unverifiable. Even religious circles accept that much that was written in the Christian Bible was by many authors over possibly hundreds of years. 'Facts' are distorted even in one's own lifetime let alone over 2000 years or more in the depths of history.

Much history should be challenged, but it is taught in schools (indoctrination) as though it is undeniable 'fact'. It remains unprovable and should be regarded as maybe. If it's realistically plausible.

The concept of the 30-year rule conspires to hide current information away for this period and much can be 'altered' in a 'private' archive of eventually public material over a 30 year period. The people involved at the time will either be dead or will have forgotten to the extent that verification of any challenge is very unlikely. Any archived documents will almost certainly be covered by the Official Secrets Act, so official copies will (almost certainly) not exist. And even if they did, they could very simply be just dismissed as fakes.

This exemplifies the most useful function of 'blogs' and journals (Comment) to record events at the time so any future distortion of 'facts' can be challenged.

Officially, the Freedom of Information Act appears to be important, but seems to be cynically disregarded by organisations who choose to not comply with requests. Not surprising in UQ (aka UK) Ltd. The official line is that some information is exempted.

  • Some information may not be available because it falls within one of the exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Simply entering keywords exemption, freedom, information returns over 2,200 results. There are just too many conditions to accept that any bona fide request could retrieve any significant information that is not exempted and so remains unavailable even after 30 years. Freedom of Information should mean just that, but like the Life Sentence in UQ (aka UK) Ltd will be something much less. It's euphemistic and nonsensical. More like:

  • FIA aka
    • Freedom of Some Information Only Act 2009
  • Life Sentence aka
    • Reasonably Not Too Lengthy Sentence


The term oligarch is not of Russian origin, but many emanate from Russia. The wealth that has been accumulated came from somewhere and the owners appear to belong to a private club. Crisis hits Russia's super-rich.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Growth: Consumer

Japan is a small, overpopulated country. The UQ (aka UK) Ltd is similar. Relatively small with a large urbanised population. This country has been producing too many cars for a population that does not want and cannot afford them. Export has met with its problems too reflecting that the global population has already become too large. A large population does not equate to a large consumer market, potential or otherwise. The concept of producing a greater (global) population just to buy a greater number of products had long ago reached the end of the no-through road.

More and more consumers 'wanting' everything today as advertising has been so successful. Everybody 'needing' the unnecessary. Credit leading to debt. The illusion is that the requirements are all affordable, even though debt is required for 'possession'. Not ownership. The consumer 'owns' their debt and is solely responsible for it. The 'possession' is paid for with virtual money that creates more debt. Payment for the merchandise has been made by the lender to whom the consumer is in debt. Interest raises the cost of the 'unnecessary' item. This is growth. The interest on the debt makes the capital borrowed just...


A debt can be 'created' in moments, but the settlement of that debt can take...


It is quite probable that noises will be made about (global) population growth. Similar in principle to revealing the global deficit in money (there isn't any) and anyone who imagines that creating money by printing it or lending Virtual Money can ever solve the problems is delusional. Money has always been used as a controlling entity. Religion has done the same. Belief systems control billions of people. Population growth needs absolute control of that population. Create a dependency on money and controls are then in place.

Create the situation and provide the solution:


Amazingly simple cattle prod principle, but it always works.

Selling a product (theoretically) returns any development and production outlay (with profit) only if the product can be sold. Blind greed could never allow the prediction of ultimate failure in the theory as all its flaws are effectively invisible, but they have always been there (and are still) to be seen. There are not enough people working in jobs that actually create required products of necessity. There is a very large difference between technological advancement producing interesting ideas and 'encouraging' potential consumers to buy those ideas as products when they don't need them.

  • A very simple illustration can be made by considering the purchase of a new and faster car. The time taken to travel from A to B may be a little shorter, but the increase in traffic results in congestion and snails' pace travel. All the 'power' under the bonnet cannot be experienced. All that money wasted on buying a product that may have potential though can never be realised.
Even though a product may be desirable: advertising has made awareness of its existence happen to promote the belief that it is necessary. It demonstrates the concept of parting people from their money. Moving it about. Winners and Losers is becoming all too apparent. Jobs in the services and financial industries just move the fixed wealth around. When it's all been moved from poor to rich, the rich must turn upon themselves. Even the blind will see one day, but only when their wealth is threatened. They'd rather die than give up their money.

  • The host will turn on the parasite. Survival of the fittest. The parasite (Winner becomes Loser) is devoid of the essentials for life and can never ever be fit let alone survive and is totally dependent on the host (Loser becomes Winner).
A thirsty man in a desert will pay any amount for a drink of water. King Midas would die of thirst, but he changed his ways.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Drugs And Low Level Thinking

The government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs appears to have a remit that doesn't actively discourage drug use, but cynically (and not particularly subtely) favours it. The recommendation of this august body is to downgrade ecstasy from being a class A to class B drug.
  • "I suspect that they [the government] accepted our evidence but I think that they have made a political decision not to reclassify"
Professor David Nutt (chairman)
That statement amounts to monumental arrogance and self-promotion by attempting to justify its own perceived importance as though there is anything of import that they have to say. The assessment is based on the relative dangers of any particular drug. Heroin is more dangerous than ecstasy as it kills more (known deaths). So the conclusion (and message) is that heroin is not safe, but ecstasy is safe. The assessment plays a numbers game involving the number of deaths.
  • Most death (or unknown permanent injury) =
seriously dangerous
  • Fewer dead (or unknown injury) =
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs own figures account for the annual death toll: 622 (Heroin and morphine) 276 (Methadone) 86 (Cocaine) 70 (Amphetamines) 33 (Ecstasy) 14 (Cannabis) This list amounts to hundreds of needless deaths. This does not take into account the number of addicts 'living' the miserable and avoidable existence of the 'undead'. The opportunity to clarify the danger of any drug, the integrity or even the verified identity of which cannot be known (drug dealers are not among the most honourable groups of lethal parasite), has been missed, but supported by an advisory agency. It seems that the fewer the deaths attributable to any particular substance then the safer the drug. It was this same council that recommended that cannabis should remain a class C drug and not be moved to a higher classification. It is highly questionable who this group supports. Certainly not the misguided who 'use' or 'take' drugs. It's dangerous and probably safer indulging in Russian Roulette. The availability of firearms seems almost as widespread as contacting any other type of dealer. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs still advises government.
  • Who sponsors these dangerous people?
Government or so it seems
It makes one wonder if these people have children and if they do whether those children have ever indulged in or are currently still active in drug 'taking' and 'using'. The misery of the user, family and friends is incalculable, though organisations like DrugScope would help to save the user from him/herself. It all appears to be a completely alien concept to the likes of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The question must be asked: is there an implication that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs provides a more balanced and authoritative view than organisations like DrugScope? Drugs are dangerous Out Of Joint - You Have Been Warned The somewhat perverse situation is that government engages this 'Advisory' entity and then (quite rightly) disregards that advice. Such advisers are surely dangerous by virtue of the recommendations promoted, so why is the ACMD still consulted?
Absurdly: Take killer drugs, they aren't really dangerous. They only kill if you don't follow the non-existent government guidelines that would aid and assist in the execution of an illegal activity.
Perversity in the extreme. Alcohol is a terrific tax earner for the government even though this drug kills. 'Illegal' drugs do not attract tax (by definition they cannot), but imagine if they did. Enormous income though a government cannot be seen to promote the use of harmful products!!! Tobacco products (and that includes the products like NiQuitin, a potential Hook that perpetuates addiction) or alcohol are very, very large revenue earners. Even though they all kill people. So what? A few deaths. Who cares? Certainly the government appears as though it couldn't really be bothered. The users of those products not sanctioned as legal by government probably didn't contribute much to the coffers, anyway. Alcohol Warning Labels Cynicism Hypocrisy Labels (pinned to any government)

Friday, February 13, 2009

Brown, Gordon: The Doctor

Doctor James Gordon Brown - historian and Tax Doctor

Clarkson, Jeremy And Brown, Gordon

Jeremy Clarkson's comment about Gordon Brown could have been a mistake (maybe it wasn't - DA) and was made possible by referring to him as being visually challenged. Brown suffered a retinal detachment after being kicked in the head during an end-of-term rugby union match at his old school when aged around 16. He was left blind in his left eye, but has two eyes and is regarded as intelligent. Turning a blind eye has the benefit of being able to ignore something that is conveniently beneficial yet should still be acknowledged: self-serving and greedy bankers.

Some doubtless are honest and demonstrate true integrity and probity, but it only takes a few to tarnish the image of the many. There is need to look only to the top, not any lower. If money is on the table (the bonus), it is ludicrous to even 'ask' that a greedy individual should not take something that is completely unjustified. This demonstrates the lie that there is control. The money should not be there. Temptation to the greedy will always succeed. If 'cash' is not taken is there some other inducement in its place to ensure behaviour is as required to perpetuate an illusion?

Brown has helped wonderfully to perpetuate the survival of the parasite. It is also a major reason to favour population growth. The competition for fewer jobs makes it easier to pay less wages, made even easier by importing labour, yet still screw everybody who does work (the host) for more taxes and reiteratively pay the parasite. Benefit bribes are paid to that portion of the host that supports the power-crazed parasite. The parasite will always be the minority or the parasite must attack itself. That cannot work by definition since the parasite has a great deal missing that the host provides and would mean that the parasite becomes the host and supports itself!

This perverse logic is clearly impossible.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Bankers. Rich And Full Of It

The so-called super rich. It's an identical scenario to the illusion that a thief is wealthy. Actually, they are of no consequence, truly empty and completely worthless. All a thief can do is steal and destroy. Simply a method of redistribution by taking and creating nothing more than a new mess. Unfortunately (and pathetically), those who desire the wealth of others and are not technically themselves thieves (Thought Police targets?), imagine that wealthy people are somehow special. They aspire to sycophancy as it's the best they can do. They don't create neither do they 'take'. Bankers don't create, but they do take, apparently. This is a classic (and extremely overt) example of redistribution in action. Moving from one, the public host, to the other: the private parasite. Paradoxically, they give support to the perception that the rich should be placed on a pedestal and worshipped!

The host worshipping the parasite: bizarre. But this is one reason for the drive that brings wealth through 'taking' from others. Satisfying the ego that craves fame and adulation. These are typical 'qualities' of those few people who are collectively responsible for creating the situation. The solution is to plead for public funds knowing that they will get them to shore up the system they have wrecked. The greed is exemplified by the bonus. The arrogance of the groomed apology is grotesque in its ugliness. The bonuses will then be taken. That collective and really gut heaving apology is expected to be enough to satisfy outrage, but such outrage falls on the deaf ears of the mind numbing arrogance of the outrageous.

"I'm sorry. OK, now that I've said 'sorry' ...

where's my cash?"

That is just one example of the arrogance, but if the bonus isn't taken then they could (theoretically) actually be men of integrity after all, though what else may be on offer to encourage 'good behaviour'? Thousands of lives have been ruined through arrogant greed, which is not atypical of high level corporate management entrusted (though seemingly unaccountable) with £bns. Resignation has all the hallmarks of the peerage overture.

The Second House

Does Sir James Crosby now not have to answer difficult questions, traceable back to Gordon Brown? Brown is (apparently) responsible for recommending the knighthood. Keep quiet and move forward. Deals get done. Who knows?

Devil's Advocate

The concept of the Revolving Door is not a new one and involves the placement of an individual into a position where they can be beneficial to a cause or special interest. It engenders the 'danger' of double standards where unfair influence can be used to acquire the required result. It is similar in principle to insider information in share trading, except it is not simply using advantageous information that should not be generally known, but actually creating the situation that will provide that information in the first place. A massive advantage over the already advantaged.

Wikipedia entry

  • Crosby joined the Halifax bank in 1994 as Managing Director of Halifax Life. Five years later, he became the chief executive of Halifax plc, and in 2001 Crosby became the first chief executive of the newly-formed HBOS Group after overseeing the merger between Halifax plc and the Bank of Scotland. Crosby left this position in July 2006, leaving HBOS as the fourth largest bank in the United Kingdom in terms of market capitalisation. During his time at HBOS massive mortgage fraud was discovered by an undercover investigation for The Money ProgrammeMortgage Madness (29.10.03).
  • In April 2008, Crosby was appointed by Chancellor Alastair Darling to head up a Working Group of mortgage industry experts to advise the Government on how to improve the functioning of the mortgage market.
  • In January 2009 it was reported that James Crosby will become the Chairman of Misys.

Governments throw money at the system that must be protected by any means and whatever the cost to the taxpayer. And without the permission of the taxpaying public underwriter. The ugly paradox is that the devil's filthy lucre is worshipped within this god-type system and the public is sacrificed on that private altar of greed.

The virtual money that enslaves the taxpayer and was...

'given' the banks as part of an alleged rescue package and it appears this 'gift' was without conditions (gifts generally are given free of conditions). Cynicism. The reason that the financial system cannot fail (cannot be allowed to) is that even if a country is technically bankrupt the interest at stake is collossal. But this is theoretical and virtual money. Being virtual it doesn't really exist. Failure of the system would reveal the lie and would be similar in principle to the Apollo hoax. Were the impossibility of man ever to have been to the Moon, the global outrage would be similar to proving that god either does or doesn't exist. Self-denial would still win out though as the revelation would be just too much to handle.

That the banks fail to lend this donated finance suggests that there is nothing to lend. Maybe the virtual money is just smoke and mirrors, but to prove it by demonstration as being true, the global depression (mental not financial) would be absolute and too much to comprehend. Virtual money is only useful to those who believe in it and pay interest on this nebulous smoke with mirrors. Those involved at the source will know how it all DOESN'T WORK.

When barter was replaced with virtual money this was the beginning of the end. The number of £bns cannot be verified and must be taken on faith and trust! Printing money is another solution to solving problems. That cannot provide any sort of solution, but it does devalue money that is currently in the system: causes inflation. Mix into that reducing interest rates to virtually zero and the banks pay almost nothing for using savers' money. Essentially another loan (free) to the banks that don't lend money.

Where have all those £bns gone?

They never really existed: virtual money.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Bonus - Redefining Terms

Experts are needed in the financial industry (allegedly) so payment of good salaries are necessary to retain these individuals to ensure they 'do not go abroad'. Good salaries do not imply anything about good bonus. These bankers cannot be such 'experts' if the disaster they've created is typical and they should be sacked with the termination of contract. How can a contract be written including a fail-safe clause for the banker? Other than by a complete imbecile, of course. Golden welcome packages handcuff the 'bank' (or any employer). It's as though it is a simple contractual exercise to hire a 'somebody' just to pay them a fortune. They don't have to actually provide anything. It's quite repugnant. The contract presumably avoids any clause that expects any obligation to actually be fulfilled. No one is that good.


Fail and be rewarded. Succeed and be rewarded. All the people who are stepped on to ensure this obscenity simply lose their jobs to help pay for it. The bonus rewards only the able and successful. The failures will then be identified unless some other sinister activity is taking place. They are protected by the system. It doesn't apply to football clubs who pay ridiculous salaries. The managers can be FIRED if they don't deliver. Why are banks any different?

An entrance to Hell.

Growth: Population

Jonathon Porritt chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission and states that curbing population growth (through contraception and abortion) must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He also says that political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population. Porritt has been castigated for stating the obvious and the real question is why do so many people imagine it is such a good thing to accept a growing (exponential and out of control) population when common sense should prevail? From the commercial viewpoint, a large population of consumers is a good thing, even though it sounds the death knell to the human (at the very least) population.

Virtual Money

The evidence is overwhelming: global unemployment, food shortages, massive debt. Now to 'kickstart' the slowing economy (paradox: make money by providing money) and protect the car industry (after having provided failed banks with £100s billions so that they can fail again), suggestions are being voiced that government should offer loans to buy a new car and scrap the old.

Devil's Advocate: the indication here is that any car over a certain age will be declared illegal and a new car sale will become forced. How can blindness be so complete when vision has no real impairment? Imagine someone waving a knife in front of you and you can't recognise the danger.

Incidentally, comments are creeping in that the financial problems will go away as everything becomes OK. What crap. The problems will never go away because they cannot. Yet £bns have disappeared. And everything's OK. The taxpayer underwrites all the promises (without being consulted) to prop up the financial institutions. The misbehaving banks have simply received a slap on the wrist with massive bonuses being doled out for such grotesque mismanagement. These people should possibly be charged with criminal negligence instead of being rewarded for such contemptible failure. The inactivity of Gordon Brown (simply makes noises and seems to be powerless to lay down any orders and is clearly NOT in control or has no desire to upset the bankers by only 'suggesting' decent behaviour) is a disgrace and sends the message that he actually supports the behaviour: these bankers have done such a good job in bringing down the United Kingdom. That is seemingly GOOD behaviour. Generations will be paying for the destructive indebtedness and how they'll pay. The terrible irony is that (innocent) children are born into a global society that is sick. The financial system is the most corrupt concept imaginable. Without being consulted, the growing population that is imagined to underwrite ineptness and profligacy is condemned. An entire generation is being born already bankcrupt into a global society that is itself bankcrupt.

And those responsible for destroying the system escape with all the loot. The financial system has been corrupted by those who are imagined to manage it.

The answer to this may begin by expounding on the conditioning of people to accept without challenge the idea of a large population. The hypocrisy about this is really disturbing. A woman's inalienable right to have any number of children by any means can predictably mean a child being reared (brought up) in a society that cannot feed or protect it (from the alleged increase in child predators). The woman already has 6 other children so an obvious question is how was this woman qualified to be offered (IVF) in the first place.


A life of potential destitution seems to be acceptable. The woman is unemployed and has no obvious means of supporting 14 children. But society will presumably pick up the bill. Such is the outcry about a multiple (IVF) birthing, yet Porritt's commonsensical comments are condemned.

By whom? This is unclear.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Heathrow and Manston

A third runway is 'desperately' needed to deal with the anticipated increase in travel by air. So much for climate control. Aircraft pollution of the atmosphere obviously doesn't apply to air-based travel since:

it's where the MONEY is

Only trapped ground-based travel (cars, lorries) are caught in the tax trap. This is because

it's where the MONEY is

Fuel up a 'plane, allow it to take-off and the problem has (literally) gone away. Pollution of the air is the same, just elsewhere and not so easily tracked. The over all effect is the alleged global warming. It is a dead giveaway that the climate change promotion is only a highly specious way of justifying taxation. CO2 may or may not be the alleged cause of global warming, but it's definitely a fantastic cash cow.

Climate Change
Great CO2 Scam
Great Global Warming Swindle

Change in climate is clearly happening, but for a very different reason. The proposed site on the Isle of Sheppey would obviously impact significantly with plans to expand Kent International Airport at Manston. The position of the runways would inevitably cause a collision flight path of politicians and aircraft. Exploitation Of 'Global Climate Change' It's all rhetoric and a complete non-starter as any issue would surely be crushed by a money-favoured government.

Driving On Ice Is Dangerous

It's a simple formula:
Ice + Car + Speed = Significant Danger
The individual who made a comment complaining about the effects of insufficient grit and sand supplies making roads dangerous is part of the real problem. He says that drivers will have to (wait for it)... slower
Such incredibly pathetic and idiotic logic to arrive at the obvious. It is dangerous to drive fast in icy conditions, with or without the crutch of grit and salt. Even a brain-dead moron should be able to work out this simple fact. The cocoon effect of being inside a warm environment renders awareness redundant and makes such idiots even more dangerous. A temperature gauge may display zero (or less) degrees outside the warm and comfortable vehicle, but water freezes at low temperatures. A little salt may lower the freezing point, but only by a very small amount to help prevent freezing at common temperatures. Reduce the temperature to below -5degC to -10degC or so and salt will have no effect.
  • Some people believe that putting chlorine into water kills any dangerous organisms. Chlorine (gas) was used in WWI to legally murder people on the battlefields. With small amounts of bacteria the swimmer must be able to survive in the medium. The level of added chemicals (sodium hypochlorite) must be very much at the trace amount to be effective without harming people.
Sand and grit will mix creating a rough surface to assist the tyre adhesion to the road through friction. Driving sensibly at moderate and low temperatures. And moderate and slow speed. It takes a fraction of a second (literally) to initiate loss of control that cannot be recovered. The result will inevitably be a crash and possible death. Pile-ups take seconds to happen and can involve a great many drivers. Excess care must be taken to maybe stay safe.

Interest Rate Manipulation

To encourage spending and borrowing, interest rates are lowered. For a while everything will predictably appear to be stable and borrowing will look like an attractive proposition. The trap, of course, is once the contract is accepted, the borrower is a hostage to the lender. The interest rate can be progressively increased at any time without any grounds for the borrower to complain. The bonus for the banks (lenders) is that any interest paid to savers' accounts is minimal.

People need money in a capitalist economy. Greed is (unfortunately) a human failure. Banks and money are devices to extend control through exploitation of that 'weakness'. The parasite (lender) feeds on the host (borrower). Manipulation is the name of the game.

Brown Loosens Grip on Bank !!! (BBC - politics 97)
Mixed Reaction to Rates Rise

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Brown, Gordon - Broadband And State Paranoia

Brown Broadband Boost
'Selling' the service to the people - government hype
Thumbs Down - business angle (only)

It's debatable that any benefit will be enjoyed by all especially as some could obtain services and computers for free while others must pay for such connection. This is a recipe for the continuation of dividing Britain. Those who can pay will do just that (because they have to) and the others? Whether they can or just won't, get it all for free.

However, for any user the prospect of police invasion is hovering in the shadows posing a real threat. Intrusive surveillance by police and MI5 is to be allowed: without a warrant. This has been the result of a decision by ministers in the European Union in Brussels. Legalised and demanded by law without any consultation. The French, German and other EU forces can 'ask' British officers to pass over any relevant material. Presumably, but not specified, the reverse direction of the information flow will operate.

Liberty has described it's outrage as a "devastating blow to any notion of personal privacy" and plans to mount a legal challenge. Remote searches by the police have been possible since 2004 and changes to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 legalised hacking providing it was authorised and carried out by the state.

But what grounds constitute any sufficiency to authorise?

The extension to police powers has been (predictably) defended by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on the grounds that they must believe (on what evidence?) that it is necessary. The without warrant implies a non-provable belief will be enough to issue authorisation: Nightmare Police State. The Information Commissioner's Office says it would work with the Home Office to ensure cybercrime can be tackled without intruding disproportionately on the privacy of law-abiding citizens. The Home Office claims 'Working together to protect the public'. Working 'together'? Who is working with whom and how is this protecting the public? Place the public in their prison by threat alone and control absolutely behaviour by the threat of real imprisonment?

According to TV Licensing Detection and Penalties

  • It is a criminal offence to use TV receiving equipment to watch or record TV programmes without a valid licence, and there's no excuse for doing so. Still people try. In fact, we've heard all the excuses in the book and here you can read some of our favourites
The advertising of the penalties is very threatening and on a par with any other type of government threat. Nasty, especially if you happen to be one of the majority of law-abiding citizens. The assumption is that everyone is a potential subversive or crook. This is the paranoia of the state and creates instability. The government seems to be Hell-bent on attempting to frighten and so control the citizens some of which helped to elect it. Many (the majority) did NOT elect this hostile government. The true meaning of POWER is slowly being appreciated. Even by (some of) that minority that elected it.

Home Office objectives and values

The police would need to install some sort of monitoring software, such as a keystroke logger, onto a PC. The paradox here is that security software already installed onto a machine could simply block such a subversive approach. That is what security software is designed to do. The likely alleged target of such surveillance is also the most likely to remain untouched by such an approach. According to ACPO, any covert operations like this would still be governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. But covert means being totally unaware and carried out in the shadows of the hidden background.

There is clearly a conflict between the two linked concepts or a sinister and deliberate connection between Brown's aims and enforced surveillance. An added issue is the alleged interest in protecting users and especially children from the massive downside of internet use. Potential child abuse. Also the amount of crime associated with the use of the internet. This is another classic example of creating the situation and providing the solution. Encourage the use of computers, broadband and the internet and then legalise the surveillance of any activity using the service and equipment. Without a warrant being necessary. This implies that such surveillance would be clandestine with any user being totally unaware of being 'h(ij)acked'.