Blog Archives

Walter's Blog

"But how can you live and have no story to tell?" Fyodor Dostoevsky

Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.

"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review

Hong Kong weather

30/3/2023 1 Comment

The Guardian disappears up its own arse!

"The Vikings, raided East Yorkshire in AD793 to destroy our indigenous way of life. By The Guardian’s reckoning the peoples of Norway and Denmark owe me."

The ouroboros, the serpent that consumes its own tail, appeared centuries ago in ancient philosophy. It symbolises many things; the duality of existence, marked by life and death, male and female, light and dark, mortality and divinity.

Though in the case of The Guardian's self-flagellation over slavery, we need a new mythical creature — a monster that disappears up its own arse.

The world's wokest newspaper has announced a paltry sum of £10 million for a “decade-long programme of restorative justice” to atone for historical links to the slave trade. This move comes after research by the University of Hull, and others, established that John Edward Taylor, the journalist and cotton merchant who founded the newspaper in 1821, profited from slavery.

Further, at least nine of his backers who funded The Guardian's creation are also tainted. This connection is well-known but comes to the fore now in the wake of the idea we must all atone for the shit our ancestors perpetrated.

I predicted it was only a matter of time before The Guardian genuflected before the ghost of history. Plus, they've hardly put up enough cash to clean up their imagined sins. The sum of £10 million isn't even a decent lottery win and hence looks like “dollar-washing” to ease guilt.

If they really wanted to humble themselves, a bit of flogging would be worth watching. Or maybe getting their soy-boy reporter Owen Jones to work his passage as a slave.

Of course, The Guardian's apology is barren, meaningless and intellectually insulting. Someone who has nothing to do with slavery apologises to someone else who has nothing to do with slavery. And, after all, as the adage goes, "the past is a foreign country" — they did things differently - and those who insist on judging the past by today's standards only make themselves look ignorant and foolish.

Anyway, applying their thinking, I'm due a load of cash. My recent ancestors, Yorkshire working-class folk, did backbreaking work for a pittance. So where is my compensation from the fat cats who created the centuries of structural economic inequity that my people suffered?

Likewise, those bastards, the Vikings, raided East Yorkshire in AD793 to destroy our indigenous way of life. By The Guardian’s reckoning the peoples of Norway and Denmark owe me. I could go on, but I won’t because it’s silly.

The Guardian's various hypocrisies, twisting of the truth and outright lies are well-known Here’s a few to whet the appetite.

When it sold its 50% stake in Auto Trader to Apax Partners in 2008, the Guardian Media Group used a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying corporation tax. Over the years, the GMG has invested hundreds of millions in offshore hedge funds. However, they kept it under the radar and beyond the grasp of UK tax authorities.

For sure perfectly legal, but it sits somewhat uncomfortably beside Guardian hacks thundering their disapproval at the tax dodging of large multinationals. Oddly, they never train their guns on their employers.

In 2016, when the Brexit vote came in, the middle-class socialists at The Guardian decided that the "little people" were too ill-informed and easily swayed by lies. Hence, such important decisions should be left to their betters — i.e. The Guardian.

When Aljazeera exposed dodgy practices and clear conflicts of interests at the Guardian refused to see the issue as relevant.

For decades, The Guardian maintained a laser focus on the topic of race decrying institutions such as the police, the judiciary and many others for alleged failing. Yet, the paper sits on a wobbly foundation itself.

The entire editorial board is white, and only 12% of staff are non-white against a national figure of 18%. In an organisation that lectures and lambast others, this figure reveals much.

And finally, while The Guardian wears “free speech” like an insignia, in truth only certain voices are allowed. Anyone who dares to contradict the accepted doctrine must face immediate banishment as feminist Suzanne Moore discovered when she dared to challenge the dogma that “trans women are women”.

This holier-than-thou stance is breathtaking, though utterly unsurprising. For sure there is no hope that a Guardian editorial might ever assess anything on its merits, and stop judging a policy, an action, or a statement based solely on who has espoused it and what tribe they belong to.

For certain, over the years The Guardian has done many sterling pieces of journalism that deserve recognition. The investigation into the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone which grew into a wider scandal that brought down The News of World is a standout effort. Still, it constantly drifts into nonsensical feckless identity-issues driving away many middle-ground readers.

The Guardian trumpets, "Comment is free… but facts are sacred". Yet facts are so routinely ignored in favour of their preferred narrative that I wonder how the editors still put out this dictum every day with a straight face.

Here are some facts. Nobody alive today was responsible for the slave trade. Nobody today endorses the slave trade. All races, peoples and groups have suffered terrible things down the ages.

So let's get over it and move on.

1 Comment

22/3/2023 4 Comments

Not A Fair Cop

"Has Baroness Casey painted the entire institution as beyond redemption? It looks that way. And I'm not sure that is fair or helpful."

A recurring theme in my writing has been the state of policing, with some focus on the U.K. Thus, when Baroness Casey's report into the London Metropolitan Police dropped, I was straight in there.

The report, commissioned by the Met after one of its officers raped and murdered Sarah Everard in March 2021, is causing a media storm. Much is wrong with the Met, but I have an uneasy feeling the whole episode has degenerated into an opportunity to label every officer as a disgusting bigot.

Emotive labels fill the media coverage, stripped of context and scale. If prejudice is widespread, I believe it is a symptom of a failure of leadership.

To say the report is shocking is an understatement. The 363 pages detail an organisation that is struggling on many fronts. For example, the Met is not delivering on the core business of preventing and detecting crime. At the same time, the report claims that racism, homophobia and misogyny blight every aspect of the organisation.

I've taken the time to read the report. For the record, in 1994, I was attached to a specialist unit in the Met, a position that gave me insights, albeit somewhat dated. Further, during my 36 years of policing in Hong Kong, I worked alongside Met officers on several occasions. They always struck me as professional.

Back in the day, we looked up to the Met — the home of Scotland Yard — as a mythical entity that set standards for the rest to follow. Yet, the whiff of corruption was there; thus, over time, favourable sentiments faded. Then in the 1990s, it became clear that the British police wandered from enforcement into a uniformed social service. Later that drift took them down the road of policing hurt feelings and 'what people are thinking'. I've touched on how this evolved here.

Having waded through the report, I'm overwhelmed. The findings are all over the place—so much of what has gone wrong lays buried in a media narrative focusing on alleged prejudice while ignoring other primary factors. Moreover, if I was the Commissioner and this report landed on my desk, I'd ask, what should I do with this? Where do I begin?

Has Casey painted the entire institution as beyond redemption? It looks that way. And I'm not sure that is fair or helpful. She even hints at the disbanding of two specialist units.

Some cool heads are needed because this could evolve into a runaway train with the good hounded out as morale collapses. Short of an unthinkable shutdown or break up of the Met, only a long-haul culture change process with robust leadership at all levels will work. This is not a time for quick initiatives and tick-box projects.

The Hong Kong Police had some success with culture change in the late 1980s and through to the early 2000s, as it transitioned from a colonial force to more community focus. The events of 1977, as the ICAC tackled corruption prompted some serious soul searching that drove change.

Not welcomed by all at the time, the long-term “living the values” ethos changed officer attitudes and helped secure public support. Unfortunately, the events of 2019 rolled back some of that public support as Hong Kong convulsed. Given the current political climate, I'm sure there is no appetite for the Met to learn from here.

Before I get into some detail, in fairness to Baroness Casey, she has drilled deep into the Met. Her report cites many individual stories and instances that support the findings. The data is also there.

Yet it is also worth noting that Baroness Casey has no background in policing. Instead, she comes from social welfare, focusing on rough sleeping and homelessness. Whether that hinterland coloured her judgments, I can't say.

Still unnoticed by the media, what jumped out at me is that cutbacks have blown large holes in the Met's management and organisational structures. These are matters somewhat beyond the control of the police service; responsibility rests with the politicians.

To illustrate the point, to save money, many H.R. functions faced the chop or outsourcing to the extent that the Met could not estimate how many drivers or detectives it needed.

Similarly, new sergeants couldn't access the online promotion course and thus didn't bother. As a result, they learnt their role from the "canteen culture", which perpetuated inappropriate methods. Again, this affected supervision and how constables develop.

To save money, the H.R. system evolved into a self-help process without proper training, setting and monitoring expectations, or robust supervision. Given the evident damage done by these initiatives, I'm surprised that the Met can maintain its service level.

In seeking feedback from officers, one message came back to Casey loud and clear — leadership is not taken seriously.

This finding is disturbing and needs addressing. Robust and appropriate leadership can and will address many of the cultural issues that manifest as racist and such. Why this is not given more prominence in the report is beyond me.

Some of the other findings are no surprise as I saw similarities in other large policing organisations. The fact that frontline policing suffered manpower shortages and a lack of experience while specialist units remained fully staffed is not unusual. I saw the same elsewhere. Yet, that doesn't mean it's right.

When budgets get cut, it is almost inevitable that the specialist units protecting politicians and royalty are spared. They will continue to enjoy excellent training and kit and get to select the best people.

While the frontline provides the core service to most citizens, it is often the poor relation. To resolve that officers must be rotated; returning them to frontline duties on promotion, and limiting post tenure to reduce corruption opportunities are a must. With proper management systems this is easy. It's not rocket science.

Likewise, the power exercised by long-serving junior officers in specialist units is something I've seen. Sometimes this is welcomed, given that the knowledge held by these specialists can be beneficial. But "unofficial senior rank" must be discouraged and moderated by a proper chain of command — this brings me back to leadership.

Still, none of this will resolve the underfunding issues, and overworked staff forced into a toxic environment of risk-managing cases to focus on what can be done. Unfortunately, the report somewhat overlooks this.

Ultimately, I can only conclude that cutbacks and a lack of courage by senior managers to confront their political masters allowed the Met to drift into its current state. First, the public and politicians must know that effective policing is costly. Then they can decide what to focus on because funds are limited.

Perhaps chasing non-crime hate reports and other such stuff deserves dropping. After all, the police should not be documenting and investigating hurt feelings. How identity politics warped police priorities to damage the fight against crime is documented in this CIVITAS research paper.

There is much to chew on in Casey's report. Although, I do wish she'd have given due regard to funding cuts, poor leadership — including by the Home Office and politicians — and overworked staff as the root causes of the issues she identified.

Lastly, what must the young constables coming on duty tonight in London be thinking? At the best of times, policing is a thankless task. Yet, now they must venture out to the streets branded as racists, homophobes and misogynists. I wouldn't like to be in their shoes, and I expect that few will volunteer for the role in the future.

4 Comments

20/3/2023 0 Comments

Lost Control

"None of the high priests of finance, who oversaw the debacle, with their huge bonuses and pensions, suffered."

When The Economist starts an article with, "Banking is a confidence trick", you've got to sit up and take notice. The ruse is to keep everyone brimming with trust — it's all fine and dandy — so we don't rush to take out our hard-earned cash.

Because guess what? The money isn't there. There is no vault full of cash at the back of the building. Instead, your money is lent on, invested and moved around to make some profit. That is a risky business.

Plus, as an added complication, things happen at light speed in the era of electronic banking. Hence when a whiff of trouble emerged from Silicon Valley Bank, their techie customers soon got online to move their cash out. In no time, the bank was on the ropes.

Of course, everyone is asking how come this happened. Didn't we learn any lessons from 2008? Where are the regulators? What's gone wrong?

Now let me try to explain. If I get this wrong, please excuse me. I'm neither a banker nor a financial whiz— only a layman trying to comprehend a crazy financial system.

For years interest rates were low and asset prices high. Thus, SVB and others purchased many long-term bonds as solid and safe investments. Traditionally bonds provide a decent return at a fixed date in the future and, as such, are low risk. That's a safe and sensible move.

Then the Fed raised rates at its sharpest pace in four decades, causing the bond prices to plunge. That left the bank holding potentially huge losses.

But, these are paper losses which smaller banks like SVB do not need to report under America's capital rules. Only the large banks must list to market all their bonds that are available to trade. Hence, SVB carried "hidden" risks with its bond holding.

Then the paper losses at SVB became a real issue as unsettled customers got wind of possible problems ahead and sought to withdraw their money.

While a debate is raging about what exactly caused SVB to fail, many factors appear to be at play. Some suggest a "rookie mistake" made in SVB's interest-rate-risk management system that brought about a "classic bank run". In addition, there is speculation that regulation rollbacks contributed by making the bank less risk-averse.

Whatever the causes, it is clear that the bank suffered a run on deposits — this led to a capital crisis and resulted in its collapse. There are also reports that Goldman Sachs's role with SVB is already under scrutiny with echoes of 2008. However, the details are sketchy now, although more will come out in due course.

Following SVB, Signature Bank went the same way as financial stocks lost billions of dollars last week.

All these events raise profound questions about banking systems and regulation. With a third of assets in America held by banks smaller than SVB, they will now rush to tighten lending to strengthen their balance sheets.

In 2008, reckless lending and the packaging of risky mortgages caused the financial crisis. Ultimately, the taxpayers had to rescue the banks and financial institutions. Yet none of the high priests of finance, who oversaw the debacle, with their huge bonuses and pensions, suffered.

It was the ordinary guy in the street who took the hit. Watch the movie "The Big Short" to understand what happened. Likewise, "Margin Call" illustrates the immoral stance of the finance world as decisions impact millions of poor working people. The film explores how corporations only sought to protect themselves and their bounty.

Against that background, public outrage against finance houses and banks is understandable. Thus, latter-day politicians are keen to stress that no public money will be brought forward to save banks. Last week, the UK authorities made a great play that HSBC rescued SVB (UK) without help from the taxpayer.

The problems at Credit Suisse are slightly different, yet the confidence factor is at play again. Credit Suisse has recently faced several challenges and setbacks, including scandals related to its exposure to funds like Archegos Capital and Greensill Capital.

The failure of Greensill Capital in March 2021 caused Credit Suisse's clients to lose as much as US$3 billion. The same year, the collapse of Archegos Capital's fund caused the bank to lose US$5.5 billion.

Then an independent audit found that the bank failed to manage risk efficiently. So this month, asked about any further investment in Credit Suisse, the response from their biggest shareholder, Saudi National Bank, was brutal, "Absolutely not!"

Boom. Other investors then ran away, and the bank looked over the edge. On March 9th, Credit Suisse announced a delay in the publication of its annual report. When the document finally arrived on March 14th, the evidence was clear; Credit Suisse was venting cash.

This weekend UBS stepped in and took over Credit Suisse, while central banks pledged funds to the financial system to further shore up support.

As part of the Credit Suisse deal, overseen by Swiss regulators, 16 billion Swiss francs debt is written down to zero. This move means private investors with the bank, who held Additional Tier 1 bonds, have taken a massive hit.

These investments, AT1 bonds, were created after the last crash to attract more private capital into the banking system. The intent was to make the system stronger. AT1 bonds earn more interest and are considered a good investment for reasons I don't comprehend. That opinion has changed overnight.

Since 2008, UK pension funds switched a fair portion of their portfolio to these bonds. Now that these bonds can get wiped out, pension fund managers will face some tough decisions. In years to come, we may learn that AT1 bonds are another contrivance, like the packaged mortgages that caused the 2008 debacle.

Still, this wipeout also signals to private investors that they can't rely on governments to cover their investments with taxpayer money.

Yet none of this has placated markets in Asia as bank shares continue to fall, as I write. If confidence slips further, many smaller American banks may fail. I suppose the next evolution in this evolving crash will be to discover who else is holding AT1 bonds and is at risk. Hold on!

0 Comments

16/3/2023 0 Comments

Iraq - 20 Years On

"As many as one million civilian Iraqis died in the conflict's first three to five years."

Twenty years on, the legacy of the Iraq war is a complex and ongoing issue with various political, economic, and social ramifications. Some of the most commonly cited problems include the loss of life, the destabilisation of the region, and the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS.

The war also had huge financial costs, with estimates ranging from $2 trillion to $6 trillion. Wider impacts include geopolitical repercussions, including strained diplomatic relationships and international tensions. While the profound personal cost of the war on individual veterans and their families, as well as on Iraqi society, is still felt today.

Estimates of Iraqi deaths vary, but some studies suggest that as many as one million civilian Iraqis died in the conflict's first three to five years. Yet, it's important to note that the exact number of deaths is difficult to determine. Different sources may use other methods and definitions of a "war-related death."

Meanwhile, the dislocation of Iraqi society has been long-lasting, with ongoing effects on public health, infrastructure, and political stability.

Research points to increased child mortality due to disrupted medical services, and five million orphaned kids. Without parents and stable communities, each of those kids is vulnerable to radicalisation.

The war, especially its initiation, did immeasurable damage to trust in Western politicians, the intelligence services and the integrity of the media. Few journalists bothered to question the narrative fed from Bush, Blair and others, despite deep suspicions. Hence, last year when the U.S. warned of a pending invasion of Ukraine, many commentators expressed reservations given the legacy of misinformation and the mistrust.

While historians and policymakers still debate the causes of the war, at the core are some simple facts. After the 9/11 attack, the U.S. was keen to end potential threats citing claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Thus, the invasion occurred as part of the George W. Bush administration's war on terror.

Other factors included the desire to promote democracy and stability in the region and to end the rule of Saddam Hussein. Some critics have pointed to other matters, such as the desire to secure access to Iraq's oil reserves, contributing to the decision to go to war.

We now know that the WMDs didn't exist. Moreover, the region is now less stable, and while Saddam Hussein did fall, his departure ignited long-suppressed tribal strife. That rumbles on.

It is now acknowledged that the intelligence about Iraq's WMD capabilities was wrong. Prime Minister Tony Blair led the U.K. to join the war based on an “intelligence dossier” produced by his spin doctor Alastair Campbell. This document suggested that Saddam Hussein could deploy chemical weapons within 45 minutes without warning. The newspapers immediately ran stories that Saddam could hit the U.K. It was all nonsense.

Much later, the Chilcot inquiry cleared Campbell of "sexing up" intelligence to make a case for war in Iraq. While the report was critical of the intelligence gathering and decision-making process leading up to the war, it did not find evidence of intentional deception or manipulation by Campbell. Still, many remain deeply sceptical of Campbell’s actions.

Foreign Office experts tried to warn Blair of the likely disastrous consequences of an invasion, which he dismissed with the words, “That’s all history. This is about the future.” Jack Chirac, the French president, who'd served in the military, reminded Blair of the horrors of wars, asking if Blair realised that the invasion might precipitate a civil war. In his arrogance, enabled by a spineless cabinet and a gullible press pack, Blair pressed on.

The war proper ran from 2003 until the last troops withdrew in 2011. But, the United States became re-involved in 2014 as an insurgency threatened the post-invasion Iraqi government. It was soon obvious that U.S. having invaded didn’t know what to do next as disorder escalated, with any thoughts of “nation building" relegated in the face of violence.

These days Iraq remains unstable. There’s also a high threat of kidnapping throughout the country, with terrorist and militant groups active in most areas.

The answer to whether the invasion of Iraq was worth it is a matter of ongoing debate. For sure, the war had a significant impact on the standing of the West and the United States. The use of flawed intelligence to justify the war and the later failure to find WMDs eroded trust. The war also fueled anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and beyond.

Clearly, neither Bush nor Blair fully comprehended the risks faced by invading, nor did they give serious thought to what came next. Blinded by passion and hubris, they went in and soon prevailed on the battlefield. Yet, that was the easy bit.

This anniversary will be taken by many as an opportunity to reflect on questions of a legitimate intervention. Comparisons will inevitably be made to the situation in Ukraine today, comparisons which make it all the more important to remember the real lessons of the 2003 war in Iraq.

The costs of war are immense, and never just material, while the consequences are unpredictable. Nations can win the war, but still forfeit peace

0 Comments

<<Previous

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

The Guardian disappears up its own arse!

Not A Fair Cop

Lost Control

Iraq - 20 Years On

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter