Feed aggregator

‘A Conspiracy Of Silence’ – HSBC, The Guardian And The Defrauded British Public

Media Lens - Fim, 05/03/2015 - 02:15

The corporate media have swiftly moved on from Peter Oborne's resignation as chief political commentator at the Telegraph and his revelations that the paper had committed 'a form of fraud' on its readers over its coverage of HSBC tax evasion.

But investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed has delved deeper into the HSBC scandal, reporting the testimony of a whistleblower that reveals a 'conspiracy of silence' encompassing the media, regulators and law-enforcement agencies. Not least, Ahmed's work exposes the vanity of the Guardian's boast to be the world's 'leading liberal voice'.

Last month, the corporate media, with one notable exception, devoted extensive coverage to the news that the Swiss banking arm of HSBC had been engaged in massive fraudulent tax evasion. The exception was the Telegraph which, as Oborne revealed, was desperate to retain advertising income from HSBC.

But now Ahmed reports another 'far worse case of HSBC fraud totalling an estimated £1 billion, closer to home'. Moreover, it has gone virtually unnoticed by the corporate media, for all the usual reasons.

According to whistleblower Nicholas Wilson, HSBC was 'involved in a fraudulent scheme to illegally overcharge British shoppers in arrears for debt on store cards at leading British high-street retailers' including B&Q, Dixons, Currys, PC World and John Lewis. Up to 600,000 Britons were defrauded.

Wilson uncovered the crimes while he was head of debt recovery for Weightmans, a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of John Lewis. But when he blew the whistle, his employer sacked him. He has spent 12 years trying to expose this HSBC fraud and to help obtain justice for the victims. The battle has 'ruined his life', he said during a brief appearance on the BBC's The Big Questions, the only 'mainstream' coverage to date.

Ahmed writes that the 'most disturbing' aspect of 'HSBC's fraud against British consumers' is that it 'has been systematically ignored by the entire British press'.

He adds:

'In some cases, purportedly brave investigative journalism outfits have spent months investigating the story, preparing multiple drafts, before inexplicably spiking publication without reason.'

Examples include BBC Panorama, BBC Newsnight, BBC Moneybox, BBC Radio 5 Live, the Guardian, Private Eye and the Sunday Times.

The Sunday Times is the most recent example. A couple of weeks ago, the paper had a big exposé on the HSBC consumer credit fraud ready to go. But it was 'inexplicably dropped' at the last minute. Ahmed writes:

'HSBC happens to be the main sponsor of a series of Sunday Times league tables published for FastTrack 100 Ltd., a "networking events company." The bank is the "title sponsor" of The Sunday Times HSBC Top Track 100, has been "title sponsor of The Sunday Times HSBC International Track 200 for all 6 years" and was previously "title sponsor of The Sunday Times Top Track 250 for 7 years."'

Ahmed reports that the Sunday Times journalist preparing the spiked story did not respond to a query asking for an explanation.

‘A Conspiracy Of Silence’ – HSBC, The Guardian And The Defrauded British Public

Media Lens - Fim, 05/03/2015 - 02:15

The corporate media have swiftly moved on from Peter Oborne's resignation as chief political commentator at the Telegraph and his revelations that the paper had committed 'a form of fraud' on its readers over its coverage of HSBC tax evasion.

But investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed has delved deeper into the HSBC scandal, reporting the testimony of a whistleblower that reveals a 'conspiracy of silence' encompassing the media, regulators and law-enforcement agencies. Not least, Ahmed's work exposes the vanity of the Guardian's boast to be the world's 'leading liberal voice'.

Last month, the corporate media, with one notable exception, devoted extensive coverage to the news that the Swiss banking arm of HSBC had been engaged in massive fraudulent tax evasion. The exception was the Telegraph which, as Oborne revealed, was desperate to retain advertising income from HSBC.

But now Ahmed reports another 'far worse case of HSBC fraud totalling an estimated £1 billion, closer to home'. Moreover, it has gone virtually unnoticed by the corporate media, for all the usual reasons.

According to whistleblower Nicholas Wilson, HSBC was 'involved in a fraudulent scheme to illegally overcharge British shoppers in arrears for debt on store cards at leading British high-street retailers' including B&Q, Dixons, Currys, PC World and John Lewis. Up to 600,000 Britons were defrauded.

Wilson uncovered the crimes while he was head of debt recovery for Weightmans, a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of John Lewis. But when he blew the whistle, his employer sacked him. He has spent 12 years trying to expose this HSBC fraud and to help obtain justice for the victims. The battle has 'ruined his life', he said during a brief appearance on the BBC's The Big Questions, the only 'mainstream' coverage to date.

Ahmed writes that the 'most disturbing' aspect of 'HSBC's fraud against British consumers' is that it 'has been systematically ignored by the entire British press'.

He adds:

'In some cases, purportedly brave investigative journalism outfits have spent months investigating the story, preparing multiple drafts, before inexplicably spiking publication without reason.'

Examples include BBC Panorama, BBC Newsnight, BBC Moneybox, BBC Radio 5 Live, the Guardian, Private Eye and the Sunday Times.

The Sunday Times is the most recent example. A couple of weeks ago, the paper had a big exposé on the HSBC consumer credit fraud ready to go. But it was 'inexplicably dropped' at the last minute. Ahmed writes:

'HSBC happens to be the main sponsor of a series of Sunday Times league tables published for FastTrack 100 Ltd., a "networking events company." The bank is the "title sponsor" of The Sunday Times HSBC Top Track 100, has been "title sponsor of The Sunday Times HSBC International Track 200 for all 6 years" and was previously "title sponsor of The Sunday Times Top Track 250 for 7 years."'

Ahmed reports that the Sunday Times journalist preparing the spiked story did not respond to a query asking for an explanation.

Smjörklípur

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Fös, 27/02/2015 - 20:52

Dagleg umræða almennings snýst mest um smjörklípur, afsakið dónaskapinn, en þetta er svona. Fæst af þeim málum sem skora mest í lækum myndu breyta stöðu almennings í grundvallaratriðum. Þessi deilumál eru dægurmál að mestu og almenningur hrífst með og á erfitt með að greina hvað það er sem skiptir raunverulegu máli. Ég veit að ég hljóma eins og óþolandi besservisser en tökum dæmi.

Sjávarauðlindin, gróðinn fer í vasa fárra og hann er gríðalegur. Sumir vilja meina að við séum ríkari en Norðmenn per höfðatölu og því ættum við að hafa það betra en þeir. Frakkar sættu sig ekki við smákökurnar og hví ættum við að gera það? Almenningur ætti því að ræða um sjávarútveg daginn út og inn. Almenningur ætti því að krefjast fullrar hlutdeildar í auðlind sinni til að bæta kjör sín; lágmarksframfærslu, ókeypis heilbrigðiskerfi, gott menntakerfi, nýtt sjúkrahús og svo framvegis.

Rafmagnið er selt stóriðju ódýrt og bankarnir mala gull. Við erum ógeðslega rík en það eru bara örfáir sem njóta ríkisdæmis okkar. Hvað er að okkur? Hvers vegna erum við alltaf að rífast um keisarans skegg, veltandi okkur uppúr smjörklípum sem eru matreiddar ofaní okkur. Hvað er að okkur? Er mikilvægara að skora hátt í lækum um smjörklípur en að ræða alvarleg mál eins og auðlindamál, slor og rafmagn. Er mikilvægara að hrauna yfir náungann þó hann beri enga ábyrgð á ástandinu. Getum við ekki staðið saman eða ætlum við að láta smjörklípumeistarana sundra okkur áfram?

Við erum ógeðslega rík þjóð, við þurfum bara að deila auðnum jafnt til allra. Er farið fram á of mikið? Getum við ekki sameinast um eina slíka smábyltingu áður en við leiðum til lykta allar smjörklípurnar, geta þær ekki beðið smá stund? Plís!

Strokleður Schaeubles

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Fim, 26/02/2015 - 21:16

Grikkir geta varpað öndinni, í bili.

Samningaviðræður fóru fram á liðnum vikum og sérstaklega í síðustu viku. Grikkir reyndu að semja við Troikuna, þ.e. IMF, EU og ESB. Þeir fóru fram með miklar kröfur en Troikan beið bara eftir því að tíminn liði því að lokum yrðu Grikkir að gefa eftir sökum peningaleysis. Mikil hætta var á því að hraðbankar tæmdust og bankaáhlaup yrði í Grikklandi.

Sigur Grikkja felst í því að þeim tókst að fá fram samningaviðræður í stað þess að taka við fyrirmælum í tölvupósti hvað þeir ættu að gera eða hvað þeir ættu ekki að gera, næstu fjóra mánuðina. Grikkir fengu að skrifa sitt eigið ”Letter of Intent”, þ.e. loforðalista gagnvart Troikunni. Sá listi er í anda Troikunnar en Grikkir hafa sett inn ákvæði um ”sócial réttlæti” á nokkrum stöðum og ekki er fjallað um sum hjartans mál Troikunnar.

Viðbrögð IMF og ESB benda til þess að loforðalistinn sem Grikkir sömdu sé samþykktur með semingi og bent er á að markmið Troikunnar sé að koma gömlu skilyrðunum á blað aftur. Það er eins og þetta upphlaup Grikkjanna eigi helst að vera minniháttar hrukka á ferli Troikunnar í Grikklandi. Þar mun strokleður þýska fjármálaráðherrans koma að notum. Í Grikklandi munu áhrifin verða þau að þeim mun finnast mikilvægt að komast undan valdi Þjóðverja innan Evrunnar og því hætt við því að Grikkir kjósi einfaldlega að hætta þessu samstarfi við ESB. Í raun eina leiðin.

Ég hef fylgst með Yanis Varoufakis fjármálaráðherra Grikkja í all nokkur ár. Hann hefur þekkinguna og núna hefur hann möguleika til að skáka Troikunni ef hann vill. Þetta snýst því í raun um hugrekki hans og að fá þjóðina með sér í þessa vegferð. Það verður mjög spennandi að fylgjast með framvindunni í Grikklandi.

'Corrosive, Shallow, Herd-Like And Gross' - Peter Oborne And The Corporate Media

Media Lens - Mið, 25/02/2015 - 10:05

 

Last week, Peter Oborne resigned as chief political commentator at the Telegraph, writing:

'The Telegraph's recent coverage of HSBC amounts to a form of fraud on its readers.'

And yet Oborne is no radical. He describes how, five years ago, he was invited to join the newspaper:

'It was a job I was very proud to accept. The Telegraph has long been the most important conservative-leaning newspaper in Britain, admired as much for its integrity as for its superb news coverage.'

Our perception is very different. Whenever we have researched media reaction to the West's numerous wars, bombing campaigns and other 'interventions', the Telegraph's position has been wearily predictable. We know, even before we fire up the Lexis newspaper search engine, what the Telegraph's response will be to government claims that 'we' need to 'intervene' in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Iraq (again). See here.

Worse still, the Telegraph has the ugliest record of all UK media on arguably the most important issue of our time – the business-led suppression of the truth of imminent climate disaster. Research on climate scepticism published in the journal Environmental Communication found:

'The Express and the Telegraph accounted for over half the articles with skeptical voices within them (43 out of 79)... the Telegraph had the highest presence of skeptical voices of any newspaper at 13%.'

Oborne, by contrast, perceives 'a formidable tradition of political commentary' in a newspaper that 'is confident of its own values'. The Telegraph explains:

'Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets. We are proud to be the champion of British business and enterprise.'

This leaves Oborne's view far behind, taking us closer to US journalist Glenn Greenwald's description of the UK media as 'corrosive, shallow, herd-like and gross'.

Oborne began his criticism of the Telegraph by lambasting the publishing of a story, known to be false, about 'a woman with three breasts', included because it would boost 'the number of online visits'. But he went far beyond the problem of silly 'churnalism':

'It has long been axiomatic in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed.'

Specifically:

'It has been placing what it perceives to be the interests of a major international bank above its duty to bring the news to Telegraph readers.'

Oborne added:

'From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph... HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is "the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend".'

And so, naturally enough:

'Winning back the HSBC advertising account became an urgent priority. It was eventually restored after approximately 12 months. Executives say that [Telegraph Media Group CEO] Murdoch MacLennan was determined not to allow any criticism of the international bank. "He would express concern about headlines even on minor stories," says one former Telegraph journalist. "Anything that mentioned money-laundering was just banned, even though the bank was on a final warning from the US authorities. This interference was happening on an industrial scale."'

Crucially, Oborne made 'a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one newspaper but on public life as a whole':

'It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream media.'

As we will see, this 'second and even more important point' has been almost completely ignored by journalists commenting on Oborne's resignation.

'Corrosive, Shallow, Herd-Like And Gross' - Peter Oborne And The Corporate Media

Media Lens - Mið, 25/02/2015 - 10:05

 

Last week, Peter Oborne resigned as chief political commentator at the Telegraph, writing:

'The Telegraph's recent coverage of HSBC amounts to a form of fraud on its readers.'

And yet Oborne is no radical. He describes how, five years ago, he was invited to join the newspaper:

'It was a job I was very proud to accept. The Telegraph has long been the most important conservative-leaning newspaper in Britain, admired as much for its integrity as for its superb news coverage.'

Our perception is very different. Whenever we have researched media reaction to the West's numerous wars, bombing campaigns and other 'interventions', the Telegraph's position has been wearily predictable. We know, even before we fire up the Lexis newspaper search engine, what the Telegraph's response will be to government claims that 'we' need to 'intervene' in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Iraq (again). See here.

Worse still, the Telegraph has the ugliest record of all UK media on arguably the most important issue of our time – the business-led suppression of the truth of imminent climate disaster. Research on climate scepticism published in the journal Environmental Communication found:

'The Express and the Telegraph accounted for over half the articles with skeptical voices within them (43 out of 79)... the Telegraph had the highest presence of skeptical voices of any newspaper at 13%.'

Oborne, by contrast, perceives 'a formidable tradition of political commentary' in a newspaper that 'is confident of its own values'. The Telegraph explains:

'Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets. We are proud to be the champion of British business and enterprise.'

This leaves Oborne's view far behind, taking us closer to US journalist Glenn Greenwald's description of the UK media as 'corrosive, shallow, herd-like and gross'.

Oborne began his criticism of the Telegraph by lambasting the publishing of a story, known to be false, about 'a woman with three breasts', included because it would boost 'the number of online visits'. But he went far beyond the problem of silly 'churnalism':

'It has long been axiomatic in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed.'

Specifically:

'It has been placing what it perceives to be the interests of a major international bank above its duty to bring the news to Telegraph readers.'

Oborne added:

'From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph... HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is "the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend".'

And so, naturally enough:

'Winning back the HSBC advertising account became an urgent priority. It was eventually restored after approximately 12 months. Executives say that [Telegraph Media Group CEO] Murdoch MacLennan was determined not to allow any criticism of the international bank. "He would express concern about headlines even on minor stories," says one former Telegraph journalist. "Anything that mentioned money-laundering was just banned, even though the bank was on a final warning from the US authorities. This interference was happening on an industrial scale."'

Crucially, Oborne made 'a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one newspaper but on public life as a whole':

'It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream media.'

As we will see, this 'second and even more important point' has been almost completely ignored by journalists commenting on Oborne's resignation.

Conundrum – Syriza, Democracy And The Death Of A Saudi Tyrant

Media Lens - Mið, 04/02/2015 - 08:48

It's always a tricky moment for the corporate media when a foreign leader dies. The content and tone need to be appropriate, moulded to whether that leader fell into line with Western policies or not. Thus, when Venezuela's Hugo Chavez died in 2013, conventional coverage strongly suggested he had been a dangerous, quasi-dictatorial, loony lefty. For instance, the Guardian's Rory Carroll, the paper's lead reporter on Venezuela from 2006-2012, appeared to let slip his own personal view on Chavez when he wrote:

'To the millions who detested him as a thug and charlatan, it will be occasion to bid, vocally or discreetly, good riddance.'

By contrast, the sociologist and independent Venezuela expert Gregory Wilpert praised Chavez's 'tremendous legacy' and 'many achievements'. These included nationalising large parts of the private oil industry to pay for new social programs to tackle inequality, much-needed land reform, and improved education and public housing.

When the genuinely dangerous, neocon ideologue and Cold War fanatic Ronald Reagan died, his appalling legacy - not least his blood-soaked support for brutal regimes in Latin America - was burnished to a high sheen, presenting the former US president as a stalwart defender of Western 'values'. For the Guardian's editors:

'Mr Reagan made America feel good about itself again. [...] He gave American conservatism a humanity and hope that it never had in the Goldwater or Nixon eras...'

Coverage of the death of Saudi Arabian dictator King Abdullah on January 23 fits the usual pattern. Given the Saudi kingdom's longstanding role as a key US client state in the Middle East, in particular the West's dependence on the country for oil and as a market for arms sales, coverage was pitched to reflect a suitably skewed version of reality. Thus, news articles and broadcasts dutifully relayed the standard rhetoric of US Secretary of State John Kerry who declared:

'This is a sad day. The United States has lost a friend ... and the world has lost a revered leader. King Abdullah was a man of wisdom and vision.'

As Keane Bhatt of the US media watchdog FAIR pointed out, Kerry's distasteful words were cover for a brutal tyrant 'whose regime routinely flogs dissenters and beheads those guilty of "sorcery"'. Amnesty reports that more than 2,000 people were executed in Saudi Arabia between 1985 and 2013:

'It is absolutely shocking to witness the Kingdom's authorities' callous disregard to fundamental human rights. The use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia is so far removed from any kind of legal parameters that it is almost hard to believe.'

Writer Anas Abbas observed that when it comes to the barbarity of crime and punishment, there is little to choose between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State.

Human Rights Watch notes that despite modest Saudi reforms, women and ethnic minorities still suffer from an 'enforced subservient status' and discrimination against women remains entrenched. Human rights violations continue to take place against Saudi Arabia's nine million domestic migrant workers. 

According to Campaign Against Arms Trade, Saudi Arabia is the UK's largest customer for weaponry, with over £5.5 billion worth of arms in the five and a half years from January 2008 to June 2012. In 2012, the New York Times reported:

'Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists...'

Veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn points to Saudi Arabia's critical role in the rise of Isis, 'stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world.' He adds:

'15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.'

Abdullah was also an accomplice to US war crimes in the Middle East, not least the invasion of Iraq which 'relied upon secret, extensive Saudi military assistance'. Moreover, a classified cable from the US embassy in Riyadh, published by WikiLeaks, referred to 'the king's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran', with Abdullah appealing to American officials 'to cut off the head of the snake'.

Murtaza Hussain, a journalist at The Intercept, notes that:

'in the case of almost every Arab Spring uprising, Saudi Arabia attempted to intervene forcefully in order to either shore up existing regimes or shape revolutions to conform with their own interests.'

For example:

'In Bahrain, Saudi forces intervened to crush a popular uprising which had threatened the rule of the ruling al-Khalifa monarchy...'

President Obama turned a blind eye to all of this when he praised 'King Abdullah's vision' which was dedicated 'to greater engagement with the world.'

So how did the BBC, the global paragon of 'impartial' news, respond to King Abdullah's death?

Conundrum – Syriza, Democracy And The Death Of A Saudi Tyrant

Media Lens - Mið, 04/02/2015 - 08:48

It's always a tricky moment for the corporate media when a foreign leader dies. The content and tone need to be appropriate, moulded to whether that leader fell into line with Western policies or not. Thus, when Venezuela's Hugo Chavez died in 2013, conventional coverage strongly suggested he had been a dangerous, quasi-dictatorial, loony lefty. For instance, the Guardian's Rory Carroll, the paper's lead reporter on Venezuela from 2006-2012, appeared to let slip his own personal view on Chavez when he wrote:

'To the millions who detested him as a thug and charlatan, it will be occasion to bid, vocally or discreetly, good riddance.'

By contrast, the sociologist and independent Venezuela expert Gregory Wilpert praised Chavez's 'tremendous legacy' and 'many achievements'. These included nationalising large parts of the private oil industry to pay for new social programs to tackle inequality, much-needed land reform, and improved education and public housing.

When the genuinely dangerous, neocon ideologue and Cold War fanatic Ronald Reagan died, his appalling legacy - not least his blood-soaked support for brutal regimes in Latin America - was burnished to a high sheen, presenting the former US president as a stalwart defender of Western 'values'. For the Guardian's editors:

'Mr Reagan made America feel good about itself again. [...] He gave American conservatism a humanity and hope that it never had in the Goldwater or Nixon eras...'

Coverage of the death of Saudi Arabian dictator King Abdullah on January 23 fits the usual pattern. Given the Saudi kingdom's longstanding role as a key US client state in the Middle East, in particular the West's dependence on the country for oil and as a market for arms sales, coverage was pitched to reflect a suitably skewed version of reality. Thus, news articles and broadcasts dutifully relayed the standard rhetoric of US Secretary of State John Kerry who declared:

'This is a sad day. The United States has lost a friend ... and the world has lost a revered leader. King Abdullah was a man of wisdom and vision.'

As Keane Bhatt of the US media watchdog FAIR pointed out, Kerry's distasteful words were cover for a brutal tyrant 'whose regime routinely flogs dissenters and beheads those guilty of "sorcery"'. Amnesty reports that more than 2,000 people were executed in Saudi Arabia between 1985 and 2013:

'It is absolutely shocking to witness the Kingdom's authorities' callous disregard to fundamental human rights. The use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia is so far removed from any kind of legal parameters that it is almost hard to believe.'

Writer Anas Abbas observed that when it comes to the barbarity of crime and punishment, there is little to choose between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State.

Human Rights Watch notes that despite modest Saudi reforms, women and ethnic minorities still suffer from an 'enforced subservient status' and discrimination against women remains entrenched. Human rights violations continue to take place against Saudi Arabia's nine million domestic migrant workers. 

According to Campaign Against Arms Trade, Saudi Arabia is the UK's largest customer for weaponry, with over £5.5 billion worth of arms in the five and a half years from January 2008 to June 2012. In 2012, the New York Times reported:

'Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists...'

Veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn points to Saudi Arabia's critical role in the rise of Isis, 'stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world.' He adds:

'15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.'

Abdullah was also an accomplice to US war crimes in the Middle East, not least the invasion of Iraq which 'relied upon secret, extensive Saudi military assistance'. Moreover, a classified cable from the US embassy in Riyadh, published by WikiLeaks, referred to 'the king's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran', with Abdullah appealing to American officials 'to cut off the head of the snake'.

Murtaza Hussain, a journalist at The Intercept, notes that:

'in the case of almost every Arab Spring uprising, Saudi Arabia attempted to intervene forcefully in order to either shore up existing regimes or shape revolutions to conform with their own interests.'

For example:

'In Bahrain, Saudi forces intervened to crush a popular uprising which had threatened the rule of the ruling al-Khalifa monarchy...'

President Obama turned a blind eye to all of this when he praised 'King Abdullah's vision' which was dedicated 'to greater engagement with the world.'

So how did the BBC, the global paragon of 'impartial' news, respond to King Abdullah's death?

Syriza

Gunnar Skúli bloggar - Sun, 25/01/2015 - 23:20

Núna virðist ljóst að Syrizas hafi unnið kosningarnar í Grikklandi. Þess vegna eru miklar líkur á því að ný ríkisstjórn Grikklands muni véfengja aðferðafræði Evrópusambandsins og Alþjóðagjaldeyrissjóðsins á lausn kreppunnar í Grikklandi. Sú hugmyndafræði gengur út á það að mistök bankanna séu greidd af almenningi en ekki af þeim sem ollu. Þess vegna verður mjög athyglisvert að fylgjast með framvindunni þegar verkfærum bankanna(ESB og AGS) verður ógnað af hugmyndum Syrizas.

Til að Syrizas nái árangri þarf Syrizas að beina auknum fjármunum til þeirra sem verst hafa það í grísku samfélagi. Þá fjármuni verður Syrizas að fá að láni hjá bönkunum og samtímis fer Syrizas fram á að skuldir sem almenningur í Grikklandi ber enga sök á verði afskrifaðar hjá bönkunum. Það mun verða mjög spennandi að fylgjast með þeirri baráttu. Munu stuðingsmenn Syrizas halda vöku sinni og veita flokknum það aðhald sem þarf til að ná árangri gegn mútum og hótunum.

Rúmlega þriðjungur grískra kjósenda hafa numið staðar og ákveðið að segja fjármálavaldinu stríð á hendur. Almenningur við Miðjarðahafið gæti ákveðið að fara í sömu vegferð og Grikkir og þar með ógnað veldi fjármagnsins. Meira hangir á spýtunni, helstu verkfæri fjármagnsins í Evrópu, þ.e. ESB og Evran gætu verið í hættu ef Syrias og systurflokkar í S-Evrópu ná völdum og krefjast þess að manneskjan sé í fyrirrúmi en ekki fjármagnið.

Framundan eru mjög spennandi tímar. Ef Syrizas heldur til streitu stefnu sinni verður mjög fróðlegt að fylgjast með viðbrögðum fjármálavaldsins. Ef hefðbundnar aðferðir eins og  ruslflokkun matsfyrirtækja í eigu bankanna og vaxtahækkanir á ríkisskuldabréfum bera ekki árangur, hvað verður Grikkjum boðið uppá. Eina litla byltingu eða styrjöld í Evrópu? Vonandi mun þetta þó verða friðsamleg breyting okkur öllum til hagsbótar.

Syndicate content