Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Are we finally getting to the meat of the issue?

When all the furore about horseburgers hit the news I was not surprised. The fact that some horse DNA contamination was mixed into beef products seems inevitable when much of Europe eats horses and the same European abbattoirs and transport systems are used to process both meats. It's almost inevitable.

When the proportion of horse was found to be up in the significant percentages it became obvious that something was seriously wrong with the trade. As usual all those highly paid regulatory bodies carefully sitting in their offices and checking the tick boxes of their paperwork while never looking at the item to be regulated - this being the normal for all modern (so called) regulation.

I did hear a report (Sky news?) that the Irish authorities who found the contamination only found it by accident.  The Irish, like all national authorities in the EU, are not allowed to run national tests but must accept the judgement of the central EU authorities - this applies to everything from foodstuffs to medical items. The TV report said the Irish authorities had taken delivery of new DNA equipment and simply used the meat products as a convenient test material to check out the equipment. I can well believe that scenario!

Seems to me that it's irrelevent whether we are dealing with dodgy abbatoirs or some sort of criminal substitution, the regulation was significantly worse than useless, not just failing but preventing anyone else checking. Typical EU interference and consequence of membership.

Now the Telegraph is suggesting that it's not just useless EU regulation that is to blame but that the situation lies further back in the EU. That last year the EU banned UK manufacturers from using mechanically recovered meat (Yech!) from the UK and thus forced cheap mass produced food producers to buy from elsewhere in the EU. I had wondered why on earth a food company in the UK would be sourcing burgers from a company in Ireland who used meat transported from Eastern Europe.  Now it becomes clear. I wonder how much money and how many favours were transferred from Eastern European processors into the pockets and accounts of Brussels bureaucrats over that regulation.

Maybe one day someone will explain not just why we are members but in simple language why we even consider dealing at all on any terms with the lying, fraudulent, self-serving, inefficient and anti-democratic EU.

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Banks and Fines

So have I got this right?

We have banks, government, customers and a LIBOR rate.

The bank rigs the LIBOR rate. 

The bank then makes x million quid by increasing the mortgage costs and charges imposed on their customers because of the rigged rate.

The government then finds out and demands a handout (fine) of x million quid from the bank. 

The bank quietly sets customer charges to cover their loss of x million quid.

Or, from the other angle:

The customers pay x million quid to the bank because of their rigging. 

Then the government take x million quid from the bank. 

Then the customers pay x million quid to the bank to make up the bank’s fine costs.

Does anyone else detect two winners and one loser in this cozy little arrangement?

N.B. The same system applies to fines applied to utility companies.

Me cynical?