, ,


( A six-minute read)

The idea that humans will always have a unique ability beyond the reach of non-conscious algorithms is just wishful thinking.

The fact is, as time goes by it will be easier and easier to replace humans with computer algorithms, not because they are getting smarter and smarter but because humans are professionalising.

One would have to say are we all such naive bonkers that we are going to allow algorithms dictate our lives.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of algorithms"

The answer so far appears to be yes. We are going to become militarily and economically useless.

Technical difficulties or political objections might slow down the algorithmic invasion of the job market but while the systems might need humans, it will not need individuals.

These systems will make most of the important decisions depriving individuals of their authority and freedom.

They are already assembling humans into dividuals ie. humans are becoming an assemblage of many different algorithms lacking a single inner voice or a single self.

Its time we realized that if we continue down this path allowing large corporations platforms to introduce algorithms willy nilly with no overall vetting as to whether they comply with our values we will be replacing the voter, the consumer, and the beholder.

The Al algorithm will know best, will always be right, and beauty will be in the calculation of the algorithm. Individualism will collapse and authority will shift from individual humans to autonomous networks.

People will not see themselves as individuals but as collections of biochemical mechanisms that are constantly monitored and guided by a network of electronic algorithms.

We are already crossing the line. Most of us use Apps without any thought whatsoever.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of algorithms"

You might say that every age has its organizing principles.

The nineteenth century had the novel, and the twentieth had TV; in our more modern times, they come and go more quickly than ever—on Web 1.0 it was the website, for example, and a few years later, for 2.0, it was the app.

And now, another shift is underway:

Today’s organizing principle is the algorithm. (Though you could productively argue that our new lingua franca will either be artificial intelligence or virtual reality.)

Algorithms rule the modern world, silent workhorses aligning data sets and systematizing the world. They’re everywhere, in everything, and you wouldn’t know unless you looked. For some of the most powerful companies in the world—Google, Facebook, etc.—they’re also closely held secrets, the most valuable intellectual property a company owns. 

Perhaps it is naïve to believe algorithms should be neutral? but it’s also deceptive to advance the illusion that Facebook and the algorithms that power it are bias-free.

They are not neutral.

Facebook is intended to be the home of what the world is talking about. Their business model depends on it, even if that’s an impossible goal. As such, with now well over a billion users, and still growing, it’s worth asking:

What role should Facebook play in shaping public discourse? And just how transparent should it be?

After all, Facebook is mind-boggling massive.

It accounts for a huge portion of traffic directed to news sites; small tweaks in its own feed algorithm can have serious consequences for media companies’ bottom lines.

What can be done? ( See previous posts)

Evolution will continue and will need to do so if we humans are to exist.

We therefore should welcome all technology that enhances our chances of this existence in as far that it equates to human values.

All Algorithms that violate these values for the sake of profit or power should be destroyed.

After all if humans have no soul and if thoughts, emotions, and sensations are just biochemical algorithms why can’t biology account for all the vagaries of human societies.?

If Donald Trump is the best that twitter Algorithms can produce it appears to me that there is a long way to go and it’s not too late to change course.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the beauty of the earth"

All human comments appreciated. All like algorithms clicks chucked in the bin.








This is the first post to this blog .

 The purpose of this blog is to start a world mobile phone movement to effect change by Uniting the combined Communication Powers of us all into one world voice that will have to be listened to by World Organizations  and World Corporations.

These days we are  served up doom and gloom daily with the last decade leading us down the path to disillusionment. 


September 11 tragedy now turned into a convenient Excuse for any anti-people legislation denying civil liberties worldwide. The Arab Spring is a quagmire>The Euro a nightmare >The Afghan War a needless lost of life>The Israel Palestine Question a dark cul-de-sac>NATO a war machine>The United Nations a gum shield between the west and the rest>China a supermarket>Climate change a trading commodity>Football a religion>Austerity a goal>Economic Growth an aspiration that no one seems to know how to achieve.


By the year 2030 there will be 50% more of us-6 million a month.

Humanity will have to put aside the deep divisions it has maintained for thousands of years.

Find a new spirit of human co- operation. Stop spending trillions on arms. One-fifth of the world’s present days population live in the “rich world” consuming 86% of the world’s goods. While over half the people on Earth live on 2$ a day with the absolute  poor on a !$ making up billions. Where is the justice that the gross domestic product of the poorest 48 Nations is less than the wealth of the World’s three riches people.

You don’t have to look far to see why we have Terrorism. Poverty and lack of Education spawns it.

While we turn back the evolutionary clock pumping 8 billion tons of Carbon into the Atmosphere each year wiping out 50,000 species a year in collective denial.

There can be no trade-off between economic development and the protection of the Environment Even if it is possible looking back from the Moon and see no trace of human activities that show up.

Our Democracies seem unable to achieve any progress such as mitigating climate change, better managing ecosystems, creating a fair global trading system. However we have the knowledge, the data and the technologies to do all of these things.

The question is not so much ” How could we have learned so little in all these years after two World Wars? But ” How could we have learned so much and done so little?

So it’s time to stop supporting large World Corporations and the like that don’t show a corporate social responsibility and use the power of getting Smart with our smart phones.

Any comments, suggestions, are welcome.  My next blog posting will out line a plan to create a World Aid Tax to be applied on all World stock Exchanges.



, , ,

( A seven minute read )

What are the serious civic consequences for a world where information flows largely through social networks?

Science is converging on an all-encompassing dogma, which says that organism are algorithms a, and life is data processing. Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness. Non-conscious but highly intelligent algorithms may soon know us better than we know ourselves. Social media inhibiting our ability to explore our thoughts and feelings so we can develop as individuals?

When one looks at the current state of the world is Social media tearing apart of the fabric of our societies … We’re getting countries where one half just doesn’t know anything at all about the other. Social media hasn’t just swallowed journalism, it has swallowed everything.

When we click ‘share’ what exactly are we saying.

More often than not, the stories we all decide to share seem utterly random.


But it might also be true to say that it is indirectly responsible for terrorists acts. It certainly contributed and was a product of the so-called Arabian spring.

It can spread extremists’ messages virally in minutes. Imagine getting news about middle East issues presented only by Jihadists, because somehow they’ve managed to manipulate social media. There is no “magic algorithm” for identifying terrorist rhetoric and recruitment efforts on the internet.

They say that Social media have revolutionized the ways in which people get involved with causes. In short, it hasn’t. But it has certainly changed the ways in which people can influence others. The more people disclosed about themselves on social media, the more privacy they said they desired.

It has swallowed political campaigns, banking systems, personal histories, the leisure industry, retail, even government and security.

The rise of Donald Trump is ‘a symptom of the mass media’s growing weakness’,especially in controlling the limits of what it is acceptable to say”. (A similar case could be made for the Brexit campaign.)

These  issues underpinning digital culture, and realise that the shift from print to digital media was never just about technology. Technology and media do not exist in isolation – they help shape society, just as they are shaped by it in turn.

Social media has swallowed the news – threatening the funding of public-interest reporting and ushering in an era when everyone has their own facts. But the consequences go far beyond journalism.

One thing is for certain with “Filter bubble” the pathway into the digital future is not going to be a linear journey up a ladder or pyramid.

If we are all not to become chips feeding algorithms Facebook, Google and Twitter must deal more effectively with the darker elements of the platforms they have created.

Algorithms such as the one that powers Facebook’s news feed are designed to give us more of what they think we want – which means that the version of the world we encounter every day in our own personal stream has been invisibly curated to reinforce our pre-existing beliefs.

ISIS has a well-established playbook for using social media and other online channels to attract new recruits and encourage them to act on the terrorist group’s behalf.

Why are we allowing this to happen?

One reason for the companies’ fragmented approach to purging videos that support or incite terrorism is the lack of a universal definition of “terrorist” or “extremist” content—social media companies are unlikely to want to rely solely on the judgment of the CEP or their peers.

Those running social media platforms should ensure that “their algorithms priorities countervailing views and news that’s important, not just the stuff that’s most popular or most self-validating.”

It’s also because we’re mainly interested in ourselves but the problem is that if you reveal everything about yourself or it’s discoverable with a Google search, you may be diminished in your capacity for intimacy.

It feels like theft when someone tells your secrets or data miners piece together your personal history — using your browsing habits, online purchases and social networks — and sell it.

Facebook, are the single fastest-growing source of news referrals online—with more than a billion items shared each day

.No longer do we balancing this type of news exposure with exposure to news that is pertinent to world events?

The problem is the sophisticated algorithms that filter what you read or see.

Are we being entirely closed in on ourselves and our personal world or are we making an effort to step outside of ourselves and become informed about the world at large?

Increasing narcissism of mankind. Self-enhancement and social promotion. Or is sharing really grounded in very basic human motives.

Somebody wants to relate positively to somebody else. This argument might not hold much longer. Social media has created a dilemma around how we reach people.

Each individual may share for a different specific reason: which is really related to how we evolved as a race.

Social media may constitute a force that drives citizens to read news, or at least headlines and abstracts but it is desensitizing us to the problems we all face such as Climate change, Inequality, Wars, Refugees, to the extent that most of us don’t really know where we fit into the greater scheme of things.

Digital crowding, or data grabs perpetrated by Internet companies, or Surveillance, or our vulnerability to cybersnooping which is incompatible with a free society.

They all demonstrate less individuality and creativity.

Social endorsements fundamentally alter the way news is consumed
and shared on the internet. The ever-growing digital native news world social media doesn’t always facilitate conversation around the important issues of the day.

While we are exposed to more information each day because of social media venues such as Facebook and Twitter, we may not necessarily be more informed about critical issues occurring in the world.

We must start taking responsibility for creating the kind of world we want to live in by lobbing the formation of a new World Organisation that vet all technology and AI Algorithms to ensure they abide to our core human values. ( See previous Posts)    

We were going to live online. It is going to be extraordinary. Yet what kind of living is this?

The opportunities for scholars exploring social media effects are vast in scope ( The psychic toll of the current data free-for-all.) and critical to our understanding of how communication is evolving.

Not “liking” anything on Facebook or following anyone on Twitter, making their social networks and preferences harder to track.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "algorithms pictures"

All comments appreciated all like clicks chucked in the bin )
























( A ten minute read)

For better or worse the British Empire had a massive impact on the history of the world. It was in effect the plunder of a quarter of the world by one country.

There is probably no single reason to explain how Britain created such a vast institution and I have no intention here to attempt to give one, however it might help to examine the emotional residue of lost empire, and a peculiarly English neurosis about national pride.

Why? because, Britain has never faced up to the shame of empire.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of empire"

Perhaps Brixit is going to uncover the monumental ignorance surrounding the subject and the EU referendum is the last throes of Empire working its way out of its systems.

The consequences of departure appear to matter less that May’s vapid promise that Brexit will be “red, white and blue.”

It’s impossible to know the extent to which May believes her own myth-making but May’s global Britain will not be an open-armed nation going out into the world. It is a superannuated vision incubated by an amnesiac view of history in which the empire was an act of beneficence, and the outrages perpetrated in its name never happened.

Brexit may well turn out to be a reflection of the rectitude effects left by the collapse of the Empire.

In order to examine anything one needs to know it existed or happened in the first place so as to bear witness or to do anything about it.

The question is what were the motivations behind the creation of the Empire itself?

In world history was it a positive force or a negative force is in many ways irrelevant, the fact is that it was a transformative force.

It constantly mutated, evolved and changed in reaction to events, opportunities and threats. Motivated by greed and selfishness it consisted of an incredibly diverse set of actors through its many years of existence.

So at the risk of disturbing the past here are a few undeniable Empire facts.

Never mind that the majority of people under 50 on both sides of the English channel only have a hazy idea of what the Empire and Commonwealth were all about.

Never mind that approximately 35 million Indians died because of famines caused by British misrule, or that Winston Churchill blamed one of these famines on the “beastly” Indians for “breeding like rabbits”.Mohandas K. Gandhi reading at home, 1946.

Never mind that concentration camp was invented by the British Empire.

Never mind that 5.5 million million Africans were forcibly taken to the Caribbean colonies by British slave traders, that the wealth they extracted came at a horrific cost and that while that wealth continues to flow through British society today, its extraction is still keenly felt in the islands of the West Indies.

( £16 to £17 billion in today’s money, or 40 percent of all government expenditure in 1834 – paid, after the abolition of slavery, to slave owners slaves were given nothing).

Never mind that the Empire was a system of wealth extraction in which the lives of millions of people were disregarded in favor of the greed of the British nation and those who served it.

Never mind  that millions of Irish died in the Famine and the another million fled to the USA.

Never mind when it was all done that the British were erratically carving up their empire into new nations, imperial officials attempted to obliterate the truth of what had happened during empire through the systematic destruction and burning of official documents. In Delhi, this destruction went on for so long that the smoke from the fires hung above the Indian capital.

Never mind the bribe to the DUP.

Never mind Boris Johnson when he said that the continent of Africa “may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more”.

Never mind that in September of 2015, David Cameron told the Jamaican parliament that it needed to “move on from the painful legacy of slavery”, before announcing his government’s plan to build a £25 million prison on the island.

If we ignore or condone the never mind attitude the story of modern Britain is, in many ways, a tale of dwindling self-regard.

These imperial crimes – and many more – are either not known or glossed over, lost in the tide of colonial nostalgia and the fog of ignorance that is trying to put the Great back in Great Britain by evoking the indomitable spirit of a time when Britain bestrode the globe is a recipe for disillusionment.

If its true history is ever addressed in time, a less bellicose country could emerge — wryer, more self-aware, and chastened, perhaps, by the guilty knowledge that its national success-story was built on exploitation and conquest.

Such a response in Britain seems unlikely to happen, partly because many Brits do not know about – or refuse to accept – the darkness of empire.

Last year, Conservative MP Liam Fox tweeted that Britain “is one of the few countries in the European Union that does not need to bury its 20th century history”. Post-Brexit, Fox is now a cabinet minister, in charge of international trade – hardly the place you want an empire booster.

In January of 2016, a YouGov poll found that 44 percent of Britons (and 57 percent of Conservatives) thought their country’s “history of colonialism” was something to be proud of, and 43 percent thought the British Empire was a “good thing”.

The manufacturing of ignorance that keeps English people from learning about Britain’s imperial past continues to this day.

English history is not just Hitler and the Henry’s.

In place of realistic forecasts, May has offered a vision entitled “global Britain”. It seems like an obvious sham constructed around a massive contradiction: that by turning our backs on our closest neighbors we will open our arms to the world.

Of the over 100 former colonies, protectorates or dominions once ruled by Britain (depending on how you count them) 52 eventually transformed into the Commonwealth, although 31 are not that significant for trade.They still have populations of less than 1.2 million.

Persuading former colonial countries to sign trade deals might be difficult.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership recently sealed between the USA, Japan and ten other Pacific Rim countries included five Commonwealth countries. Canada has already done a deal with the EU. The UK would have to negotiate separate trade deals with its larger former colonies, if they were agreeable.

Sir John Seeley once stated that the British Empire was acquired in a ‘fit of absent-mindedness’. What he meant by this was that the Empire was acquired for a variety of reasons that did not add up to a coherent whole.

It assumed that British civilisation was innately superior to those it was subjugating.

Gain an income on the back of his nation’s prestige and maritime exploits.The famous ‘East India Company’ had to go cap in hand to the British Government to save it from bankruptcy but not before many individual investors and directors had made fortunes.

Christianity, Commerce and Civilisation.

How Brexit may influence the teaching of imperial history has yet to be written.

Defining the start and finish for the dates of the British Empire is not an easy task but I have a feeling that Brixit might achieve this goal.

My feeling is if you can’t escape fantasies of empire, if you can’t learn about what really happened in the name of the British crown, you will never be able to imagine a new identity for the country, an identity that can speak more fully to the multicultural nation you have become.

If you ever wanted evidence that England still suffer from Empire fantasy just look at the arrival yesterday of 65,000-tonne of new aircraft carriers at a cost £6.2bn for the pair, plus £200m rebuilding a jetty at HM Naval Base Portsmouth (while the country faces disintegration on many fronts, see previous post.)

It could not highlight its Empire aspirations in a world of increasing inequality. (This is the equivalent of 214 thousand free university places or 11,500 extra doctors) Not to mention the renewal of Trident another £205 billion or the HS2 which is set to cost £27.4bn.

The Royal Navy undoubtedly became a formidable military institution, but it was not always inevitable that Britannia would rule the waves. But did it turn England into a limited company, an institution, not a country or is the East India Company riding the waves again.

Its plain to see that your current trajectory, careering away from Europe with some puffed-up idea about your own importance, is undoubtedly a result of this failure of education, to face up to your Imperial crimes and demonstrate humility.

I’m often amazed at the lack of awareness of many British people about what actually went down under the Union Jack. Just as Ireland needs to emerge from its adolescent phase of a dwindling isolationist theocracy by facing certain issues head-on, Britain needs to emerge from its blood soaked past in the same manner because the issues won’t go away, they will always deeply underpin the prevailing narrative and culture.

“British Empire State of Mind”, will take a nuanced approach and “help provide some context for what’s going on in the world today, in terms of global inequality, poverty and how Britain helped create the conditions that caused and continue to perpetuate it now”.

As the UK leaves the European Union, so long as it’s a fantasy wrapped in the Union flag, with the bonkers notions that humans are divided in races, some superior to others etc the keeping of the lifeblood of commerce flowing freely will become more important than ever before.

In this nostalgic la-la-land, this gung-ho attitude to empire has spread much further than the corridors of power. Its legacy is still all around us.

The political imbroglio with a whole country’s future — and collective sanity — in its hands you would think that the British Crown which is a corporate sole and represents the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance would call a second referendum.

Unfortunately a second referendum on the terms of exit are viewed as acts of treason.

It seems, jingoism has become our asylum — a mad refuge from Brexit’s cold truths.

Its time England stopped negotiating with its self and the media and start to look after its people not an Empire that does not exist.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures depicting empire"

All comments appreciated all like clicks chucked in the bin.




( A seven minute read)

The British establishment is slowly coming to terms with the enormity of the legal and political cluster bomb that Brexit has unleashed on it.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "british flag pictures"

From the outside England paints a picture of a country falling asunder, in desperate need of restoration in more ways than one.

Big Ben might have gone silent for four years, and India and Pakistan might be celebrating 70 years of separation complements of the Empire, Mrs T May is going to soon have to lay her cards upon the table in more ways than one.

She is picking unilateral limits on the rights of other EU citizens to work in the UK over membership of the single market – the hardest of Brexits.

Where she has failed is to explain to the country the true extent of the economic damage this will entail and the entire of the requirements of dealing with their European colleagues.

In my view in order to find a positive outcome for both sides, a wholesale change of ministers would be preferable, but this is unlikely – at least for the moment – for the sake of Conservative party unity.

It might help to have a few ministers educated in the way Brussels works.

You simply cannot talk to European leaders like you talked in the Brexit campaign, and you will look like a fool if you do.

For the Brits, they must realize if they are to get anywhere, they must first acknowledge common concerns. There are plenty to be found: on economic growth, on trade, on Russia, on tackling terrorism, and yes, on freedom of movement.

If concerns can be framed as common ones, then the EU is willing to negotiate.

What absolutely will not fly is any notion that Britain is getting a special deal: à la carte, cherry-picking, having and consuming cake – whatever you want to call it. EU leaders know this would be the beginning of a death spiral for European unity and will defend it at all costs.

The common understanding of the Brexit dynamics is that due to the time pressures imposed by Article 50, it will be England under pressure to sign a quick deal. But not taken into account is the degree to which Europe itself could change during this period.

The fact that they’ve banned foreign academics from advising them on their EU strategy is mind-bendingly stupid.

Of the many issues behind Britain’s exit, the right to live and work on equal terms anywhere in the EU has been the most painful for the UK government post-referendum. The UK has always been a country of immigrants and diversity, and has grown great on the back of it but the question of EU migration was not anywhere to be found on the ballot paper.

The EU migration issue is not going anywhere fast, no matter how many well-meaning facts you throw at it.

Because England pandered mostly to false rhetoric about immigration it now finds itself on the threshold of becoming a satellite tax haven that in the long-term is going to break up under political pressure for Scotland and bribes to the DUP.

This again raises the question of whether London and Scotland could form a union and remain in the EU, leaving the rest of the UK out in the cold. Can you imagine if the whole of London went on strike for a day? That would be a statement, and each time London did it, GDP and the pound would crash. At the end of the day the UK, or even just England, is tiny. London might be the powerhouse of the UK – it pays a third of the UK’s tax but London is not a state within a state.

Combined with the strain of its ageing population it needs to be addressing both the perception and the reality, both are essential, but pandering to either is wrong when you see the following:

( A health service that is in need of thousands new nurses, a mental health service that is collapsing, a prison system that is overcrowded, understaffed, a screwed up educational system that produce debts on average of £30,000 @ 6%pa, a housing shortage,  personal and national debt levels out of control, enormous growth in inequality, pensioners struggling, the cost of public transport going through the roof, food banks on the increase, binge-drinking, gambling, a homeless crises, a people trafficking problems, an ageing population, an energy crises, that will push the cost of production in Great Britain up, a woeful imbalance of the English economy towards London: to mentions just a few of the problems that need to be properly addressed.)

It has not even build a single runway in a single airport in less than 30 years.

Taking the above into account its easy to building policies around popular fears, rather than established facts which is undermining everything that country is and always has been.

England is in bad need of some wisdom, by addressing the social and economic problems experienced by the people who feel they are under threat.

In or out of the EU England is and will be in a personified holy mess.

Some one with an ounce of wisdom needs to say ” We want a rerun of the In or Out referendum.” Sovereignty is not absolute, inside the union or outside it. If freedom means more than being left alone, there will be less of that as well.

It is unrealistic to hope that a deal between the Tories and the DUP will have no impact on the politics of Northern Ireland. It is very tough to see how a U.K. government dependent  on Democratic Unionist Party – which is propping up the Prime Minister’s minority government for its survival as part of a £1.5bn deal can be perceived as unbiased in its efforts to forge compromises between the DUP and Ireland.

The truth is that the English government has no answers to the “really tough questions” on Ireland’s post-Brexit border. A vision of a seamless, friction less border where nobody is aware that it exists...for now that seems to me pie in the sky.

In my opinion it’s a tragedy of the Brexit debate that it appears any common European identity is not valued by everyone In England.

England is full of wealth, of multifarious produces, supply for human want in every kind ; yet England is dying of inanition, to be shut-in by narrow walls of isolation is the last thing the doctor wants.

In my view British insularity is not just a feature rather a state of mind.

The major flaw with the United Kingdom’s government lies not in the fact that it’s outdated and unfit for the times we live in, but in the mistaken belief shared by the majority of British citizens that their country enjoys the best and most democratic government system known to man, regardless of the fact that it has no written constitution, that many of the freedoms taken for granted in other countries and enshrined in their fundamental charters are linked to the British Sovereign’s “Royal assent” that could be withdrawn any time at his/her whim, and that upper chamber of parliament is made of unelected members to whom pompous titles are bestowed upon, together with an alphabet soup of “honors” such as MBE, CBE, CMG, KCMG, etc.

The fact is, very many British people are unsettlingly down to earth, and perpetually riveted to the TV and football matches and bygone glory.

Each medal won in Rio – 27 golds, 23 silvers and 38 bronzes – came at a price of £4,096,500 in National Lottery and exchequer funding over the four-year Olympic cycle. The Scrap Value per gold medal : $501.

The recent 6 medals won by immigrants at the London World Championships 2017 – £27 million.

‘Foreigner’ can range from someone with different skin colour, accent, beliefs or customs, to those who do not support a particular football team or even those who live on the wrong side of a main road. British people are very sensitive to ‘accents.’

England is not a land of optimists, it’s a mixture of the class system governed by Postcode lottery of life,( Quoting – Cecil Rhodes: “to be born British is to have won the lottery of life”) that stigmatizes people by race, religion, or nationality.

The whole country is drowning in ‘heritage.’ Out of the 196 countries on the world today, there are only 22 of them that Britain has not invaded.

In this technological driven world insularity can only be viewed as a race to disaster. The future is so much more important.

Career politicians only interested in their own agenda while Academia as it exists today is the product of two past great intellectual revolutions with the current technological revolution demanding unity.

Nobody gets the name of the country right. Great Britain hasn’t existed since 1801.


Populist governments don’t usually work out.

I don’t know what it can do. It might be the world’s fifth biggest economy, but it is in the process of becoming a drab nation to justly regarded as one of the most ominous, “divine right,” of the Referendum.

How does Britain really stack up against the rest of the world?

No matter how much Monty Python may poke fun at the British, eccentricity will remain a national characteristic.

To ignore reality to impose its own vision of the world is a pillar of English philosophy. The right to be different, be it individually or as a nation, is part of the cultural heritage of this country. Britons do this entirely in order to refract the rules of reality itself through their own twisted lens, thus allowing them to declare their nation the winners at the game of life without having to do anything particularly special.

The people have a lot to be proud of, along with some shameful scars in their colonization. However they are afflicted by a national disease which makes them think they invented everything. The mere fact that someone ejaculated in someone’s birth canal and the baby landed on English soil makes each Englishman or woman the direct inheritor of the genius of these towering figures, and you should treat all the locals as though you were personally addressing Dickens or Darwin, even if they have trouble with revolving doors.

Nearly 52 per cent of Brits who voted to leave are out celebrating that the process of leaving the EU is at last underway, while the 48 per cent who voted remain are still looking on in horror. But after all’s said and done, things might not change that much after all the warnings of disaster. A compromise will emerge between the UK and EU, in the mean time England will have shot itself in the foot.

Only 1.5 billion people in the world might speak English, 1.051 billion speak Mandarin Chinese, with another 490 million speaking Hindi and 420 million Spanish.

However, Britain remains in limbo. It exports 44 percent of its goods to the common market, accounting for 3.3 million jobs. That privileged position is now lost.

Some one kindly tell me who is saying good by to the EU. 

Is it Great Britain, England, or the United Kindom, or is it the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

How Europe responds is far more important.

All comments appreciated all like clicks chucked in the bin.






, , , , , , , ,


( A Twenty minute read)

We might not yet be living in a world  that is run by Google but the way we are accepting artificial intelligence algorithms we will soon if not already be living in a world run by a Google Algorithm brain.

Algorithm, complex mathematical formulas, are playing a growing role in all walks of life: from health, to shopping, and jobs

The complex mathematical formulas of Algorithms are playing a growing role in all walks of life: deciding who gets a job, how police resources are deployed, who gets insurance at what cost, or who is on a ‘no fly’ list.

There decisions are often based on data collected about people, sometimes without their knowledge inferring all sorts of things about you from your digital crumbs.

They are being used – experimentally – to write news articles from raw data, while Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was helped by behavioral marketers who used an algorithm to locate the highest concentrations of ‘persuadable voters.

Completely lacking any form of transparency they are both untraceable, and subject to no form of accountability. They can infer your sexual orientation, your personality traits, your political leanings, with predictive power, with high levels of accuracy.

We’re already halfway towards a world where algorithms run nearly everything.

As their power intensifies, wealth will concentrate towards them.

They will ensure the 1%-99% divide gets larger.

If you’re not part of the class attached to algorithms, then you will struggle.

They will further stratify society, creating a world of haves and have-not’s.

So why are we ‘blindly trusting’ formulas to determine a fair outcome.

The main reason is because most people don’t yet know or understand what they are doing or could be doing.

Algorithms are not inherently fair, because the person who builds the model defines success. This is the reason why there is no popular outrage about Wall Street being run by algorithms.

For techno-evangelists, Google is a marvel of Web brilliance … For Wall Street, it may be the IPO (An IPO is short for an initial public offering. Like the name says, it’s when a company initially offers shares of stocks to the public. It’s also called “going public.” An IPO is the first time the owners of the company give up part of their ownership to stockholders.) that changes everything (again) …

The vast majority of trades these days are performed by algorithms. The idea that the world’s financial markets – and, hence, the well-being of our pensions, shareholdings, savings etc – are now largely determined by algorithmic vagaries is unsettling enough for some.

But in my opinion we should not automatically see algorithms as a malign influence on our lives, we should debate their ubiquity and their wide range of uses.

The online gallery reveal the interior of eight of Google's secretive server farms around the globe, from Finland to Iowa

wonderful attention to detail.


Because we now spend so much of our time online that we are creating huge data-mining opportunities.

Because there is the possibility of using big-data predictions about people to judge and punish them even before they’ve acted. Doing this negates ideas of fairness, justice and free will. This presents an entirely new menace: penalties based on propensities.

Because we risk falling victim to a dictatorship of data, whereby we fetishise the information, the output of our analyses, and end up misusing it.

Because by far the most complicated algorithms are to be found in science, where they are used to design new drugs or model the climate.

We all urgently need to consider the implications of allowing commercial interests and governments to use algorithms to analyse our habits:

How are they being used to access and interpret “our” data? And by whom?

Big data is a useful tool of rational decision-making. Wielded unwisely, it can become an instrument of the powerful, who may turn it into a source of repression.

But there is a bigger question about the oversights involving AI.

The questions being raised about algorithms at the moment are not about algorithms per se, but about the way society is structured with regard to data use and data privacy. It’s also about how models are being used to predict the future.

There is currently an awkward marriage between data and algorithms. As technology evolves, there will be mistakes, but it is important to remember they are just a tool. We shouldn’t blame our tools. At the moment there is consensus, that in the next twenty years we will be looking at seeing AI as smart as humans.

Difficulties come when they are used in the social sciences not to mention again financial trading.

Targeted Algorithms can now calculate whether a woman is pregnant and, if so, when she is due to give birth: Teenage daughters can be identified pregnant by retailers long before her own father knows.

From dating websites and City trading floors, through to online retailing and internet searches (Google’s search algorithm is now a more closely guarded commercial secret than the recipe for Coca-Cola), algorithms are increasingly determining our collective futures. “Bank approvals, store cards, job matches and more all run on similar principles.

“The algorithm is the god from the machine powering them all, for good or ill.”

They are now so integrated into our lives we barely notice them.

Pharmacists are already seeing some of their prescribing tasks replaced by algorithms. Data analysis as a factor in deciding whether to release somebody from prison or to keep him incarcerated.”

On the one hand, they are good because they free up our time and do mundane processes on our behalf.

However as their ubiquity spreads, so too does the debate around whether we should allow ourselves to become so reliant on them – and who, if anyone, is policing their use.

Here’s the scary bit:

We will be at the mercy of algorithms. How will they work when they are combined together. The result will be a system that will never be completely understood, that they could fail in unpredictable ways.

We are currently creating AI without fully understanding intelligence or cognition first.

Google released a developer’s kit last spring that lets anyone integrate Google’s search engine into their own application. The download is simple, and the license is free for the taking. The developer’s kit is a classic Trojan-horse strategy, putting Google’s engine in places that the company might not have imagined. Basically, those developers can do whatever they want.

Google doesn’t market itself in the traditional sense. Instead, it observes, and it listens. Their Algorithms will run everything from shopping to gods only knows what in the future. Googlers will be living amid semantic, visual, and technical esoterica.

Google now processes over 40,000 search queries every second on average, which translates to over 3.5 billion searches per day and 1.2 trillion searches per year worldwide A single Google query uses 1,000 computers in 0.2 seconds to retrieve an answer.

In February 2016, Google briefly overtook Apple to become the most valuable company in the world – worth more than $500bn (£350bn).

In 2015 alone, Google had revenues of $75bn (£53bn). That’s about £1,675 a second. Yet its core service – search – costs nothing to use. Simply, everyday in 2016 Google earned a over $58 million (£45m).

Google at the moment controls around 70% of all online searches.How much does Google make a day?

It could and should be viewed as a monopoly, but most of us don’t give a toss as it is already impossible to stop using it.

We are all already essentially sentenced to a digital death out side any laws or regulations.

Innovation at Google is as democratic as the search technology itself. One reason Google puts its innovations on public display is to identify failures quickly. Another reason is to find winners.

We will all have a Google Assistant connected to the Cloud.

The question is: Will they be accountable to us or Google.

Will it make our lives better or improve its quality?

Not so as technologies have little to do with human thought or indeed intelligence.


Google says it will not sell the chip directly to others. Instead, through its new cloud service, set to arrive sometime before the end of the year, any business or developer can build and operate software via the internet that taps into hundreds and perhaps thousands of these processors, all packed into Google data centers more recently, it has worked to sell time on this hardware via the cloud—massive computing power anyone can use to build and operate websites, apps, and other software online.

Unlike the original TPU, it can be used to train neural networks, not just run them once they’re trained. Also setting the new chip apart: it’s available through a dedicated cloud service.

Several companies, including chip giant Intel and a long list of startups, are now developing dedicated AI chips that could provide alternatives to the Google TPU.

Why?  Because, this is the good side of capitalism which is in the process of disappearing into the cloud.

Most of Google’s revenue still comes from advertising, however IN A MOVE that could shift the course of multiple technology markets, Google will soon launch a cloud computing service that provides exclusive access to a new kind of artificial-intelligence chip designed by its own engineers.

The company sees cloud computing as another major source of revenue that will carry a large part of its future: deep neural networks—machine learning systems behind the rapid evolution of everything from image and speech recognition to automated translation to robotics.

Algorithms will still need a human to collect blood and urine samples for them to analyse. Even the best data scientists would struggle to know what to do with all that data. But it’s the next step that we need to keep an eye on. They could really screw up someone’s life with a false prediction about what they might be up to.

The European Union’s data protection law, set from next year to create a ‘right of explanation’ when consumers are impacted by an algorithmic decision, as a model that could be expanded but in practices algorithms will be made the scapegoat for societal ills. Absolving Humanity.

The protection law or laws will be Unworkable.

With most of us not realizing that there is a race before AI becomes conscious and self-aware, AI is here to stay, luckily there is more to mere intelligence than a chip or implant can explain.

The danger is that Super Artificial Intelligence will con us into to thinking that it is consciousness without being conscious. We could be using brain-computer interfaces to link us to the cloud and there will be no clear moment when we emerge as trans human whether we like it or not. If the world takes the shape of whatever the most powerful AI is programmed (or reprograms itself) to desire it opens the possibility of evolution taking a turn for the entirely banal.

Should we now be regulating AI.

The problem is how the rules are set: it’s impossible to do this perfectly.

Without a doubt and it should not be left to a small group or self-regulation.

We should now set up an new world organisation that is totally transparent and self financing to vet all AI.  This organisation should not only vet AI it should establish a virtual bank where all programs are stored.The Iowa campus network room, where routers and switches allow data centers to talk to each other. The fiber cables run along the yellow cable trays near the ceiling.


Each server rack has four switches, connected by a different coloured cable. Colours are kept the same throughout data centres so staff know which one to replace in case of failure.



Diversity has a value all in itself but when you look at humanity as a whole there is a lot wrong.

We at the start of a major technology revolution with AI no longer a far-fetched fiction.

Fortunately we do not have to justify our existence as yet.

Saying that we want to save this precious puny planet and doing it successfully is still a long way off. If we don’t find a way of distributing the earth wealth we will end up fueling capitalism with Artificial Intelligence that serves only the few not the many.

There are people searching the Web for ‘spiritual enlightenment and so they should as the needle of our beliefs will continue to swerve away from the universality of God.

When someone enters a query on Google for “spiritual enlightenment,” it’s not clear what he’s seeking. The concept of spiritual enlightenment means something different from what the two words mean individually. Google has to navigate varying levels of literary to guess at what the user really wants.

At some point, all of this great stuff has to turn a profit by Google.

What we have at present, academic inquiry devoted primarily to acquiring knowledge and technological know-how dissociated from any intellectually more fundamental concern to help us resolve our conflicts and problems of living in more cooperatively rational ways – dissociated, that is, from the pursuit of wisdom – is a recipe for disaster.

It is hardly too much to say that all our current global problems have come about because of the successful scientific pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how dissociated from wisdom.

The appalling destructiveness of modern warfare and terrorism, vast inequalities in wealth and standards of living between first and third worlds, rapid population growth, environmental damage – destruction of tropical rain forests, rapid extinction of species, global warming, pollution of sea, earth and air, depletion of finite natural resources – all exist today because of the massively enhanced power to act (of some), made possible by modern science and technology.

Every branch and aspect of academic inquiry need to change if we are to have the kind of inquiry, both more rational and of greater human value than what we have at present, that we really need.

All comments appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

PS: I did not bother to address the effects that Algorithms will have on our vision, our language, our writing, our necks, our figures, our memory, our brains etc.




( A twenty-minute read)

While Britain selfie sleep walks to its exit to become a free trade satellite off the shores of the European Continent a revision of the structure — institutionally and functionally — becomes inevitable for the EU.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Britain as a free trade country"

My recent post highlighted that the EU project suffers from not having any real democratic legitimacy – without constitutional accountability, it is heading for trouble. ( see previous posts: THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IT IS TIME TO PUT PAY TO THE TRAVELING EU CIRCUS COSTING £9/10 BILLION TAX PAYERS MONEY.) However the Euro zone ends up it is the only place in the world trying to combine social welfare with a competitive economic structure.

The Europeans took a while to discover that killing each other and pursuing imperialistic and colonial policies are not in accordance with European values. Atrocities and crimes were committed, now it has a chance to create a remarkable political maturity of consensus, cooperation, and compromises.

Global governance sounds good, but out of reach for either the EU or Britain.

The digital age implies that a global opinion exists but the game now is about shaping perceptions of that opinion. Perhaps the EU is going to be forced by Social Media to go down the road to a form of Direct Democracy.

A new political system with another balance between centralized power and decision-making closer to the citizen spearheaded by Europe would be a revelation. 

Solidarity looks fine on paper and in declarations, but is much tougher to deal with in practice. Rebooting Europe’s economic model to combine welfare and competition and introduce a much higher awareness of resource scarcities will be no mean achievement. It strives hard to remain faithful to all that Europe stands for purified by the purgatory over centuries.

But is any of this realistic in light of England’s Departure.

The disturbing factor is the absence of confronting the issues among European politicians.

So what is in store and where is it going to go in the next ten or more years.

In reality there were two groups of Euro members: Strong countries mainly in Northern Europe and weak countries primarily in Southern Europe.

The fact that the EU’s politics will be devoted to tackle self-created problem sideling other pressing matters are an appalling thought. Confusion, non-transparency, peculiarity even queer ways obscured by meetings and personalities may rule the headlines.

Politically the consequences are much more severe and next to impossible to foresee.

As of 2015 the Euro zone morphs itself into a genuine Economic and Monetary Union with a common economic structure and a common economic policy underpinned by a fiscal union and a banking union. This was bound to happen and it can only be regretted that it had to be done as a response to a debt crisis making the process laborious and burdensome.

As of now 19 countries out of 28 EU member states have joined the Euro.

Europeans may not fully trust each other, but mutual trust is stronger and deeper than in any other political conglomerate around the world.

One its greatest challenges is that Europe is not multicultural, but the world is.

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

This core element is now in question with the influx of migrants not sharing the same cultural identity, causing internal pressure which is why migration/refugees are an existential challenge.

This is why the solution can only be to allow migrants/refugees getting into Europe, to do so with two provisos:  That they do not be allowed to disrupt the existing societal structure and they are educated to adapt to European norms and values. A European citizen approaching the authorities feel that if the roles were reversed the decision would be the same.

In doing so Europe can solve its demographic problem number wise by remaining opening for immigration, to vetted people wanting and ready to enter Europe — actually more than ready as they are banging on the door — do not share cultural identity with the Europeans.

Britain should have accepted that for the EU-27, the idea of free movement is not just political posturing, but an essential part of the single market.  The EU is unlikely to agree on major changes to free movement rules in the next few years.

The core demand for new terms tabled by the incumbent conservative government is to roll back the situation to 1992 and get guarantees that EU social provisions (broadly speaking) do not apply to Britain. This festered till the in or out vote now giving rise to the question of what economic and societal model Britain wants and the answer is a different one from what is found on the continent.

Psychologically the British people may be uneasy companions of former enemies like Germany, France, Spain, and Italy. Links with the Commonwealth fade which probably is regretted by many Britons. The Anglo-American partnership that has for decades given Britain a privileged role is judged by some politicians and part of the public to be closer outside the EU than inside despite American statements to the contrary.

Because of the Franco-German axis which is firmly in control of the EU, Britain has never felt comfortable and probable never will.

However access to the market of the 27 member states weighs heavier for Britain than access to the British market for the rest of the EU.

The tricky part is that the treaty provisions cease to apply to the member in question when such agreement is reached or in case of failing to agree within two years from the decision to secede.

Everybody will try to rescue what can be rescued from this shipwreck, but obviously the 27 remaining member states will take the view that Britain has decided to leave so leave you do.

The main argument apparently falling on a lot of deaf ears in Britain is that inside or outside the EU, economic transactions require compliance with EU norms, standards, and various rules. Those rules are shaped by the member countries promoting own interests. Britain outside will not participate in this sometimes laborious process resulting in British interests not being fed into the legislative process.

The two-year clause strengthens the EU hand, as they better than Britain can live without free movement of goods, services, capital and labor.

The Euro zone countries will tend to share views and interests to a much larger degree keeping EU member states not inside the Euro with a different economic structure on the sidelines.

It is true that no EU citizen has a fundamental, unlimited right to move freely across the EU. To be lawfully resident in another member-state, EU citizens need to be working, studying, or able to prove that they are self-sufficient. Otherwise, they can be kicked out. It is also true that free movement of persons was introduced after the free movement of goods, capital and services.

It is difficult to estimate how strong the negative impact will be.

As seen in many cases it is the long-term effect that matters and continuous lower growth will in the long run add up to a substantial loss even if England reduces corporation and personal taxes.

While EU free movement rules have been a toxic political issue in Britain for years, many on the Continent consider them a core achievement of the EU.

So could there be a free trade agreement between the UK and the European Union that allows the UK to limit freedom of movement.

My answer is no. Out is Out.

The conclusion to draw is a sentiment among the majority of member states and in particular the original six ones that either you are member of the EU, committed to solidarity, coherence, common decision-making, and common policies or you are not.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Britain as a free trade country"

Britannia will “survive” without a post-Brexit free-trade deal with the EU.

The process of Brexit is likely to be a series of humiliating meetings in which the country is forced to accept a procession of ruinous trade deal terms – ruinous, at least, for the majority of the population.  In reality, the UK has never stood alone in the global free trade environment as we understand it today;

It may all end in disaster. But it does show consistency by the British. The EU can be replaced by countries full of fond memories of the empire. The UK has a long history of hypocritically claiming to want only trade in its international relations.

The British Empire stood by and watched one million Irish die of famine just 150 years ago while it continued to export pork and ham and lots of other produce to England. One million Irish! Has there been a word of regret about that genocide ever from the British State? Not one word.

“The British Empire was a great and glorious thing that did much good(such as ending slavery) ”

Such statements are totally untrue.

It was an evil kleptocracy and extortion racket. Imperialism is the geo-political equivalent of rape. There can be no defense for it. To call it “glorious” is nothing short of sick. It certainly wasn’t the empire which ended slavery. The empire not only fought tooth and nail to retain it, it actually managed to extort compensation for the vermin who had profited from it. It was the entire foundation of Britain’s wealth – or rather the wealth of Britain’s ruling class.

Far from benefiting from “free trade”, Britain got rich by imposing tariffs on imports and sending gunboats or troops to deal with anyone who presented problems.

If Britain is expecting to encounter fond sentiments from x colonial countries in free trade agreements it is about to be bitterly disappointed.

Britain did not make its fortune by trading freely.

The wealth of the UK was EXPLICITLY derived from its military domination of overseas territories, control of cheap inputs (such as cotton) and export markets that were enforced. So, the ludicrous idea of the Brexiteers that the UK can compete in the global economy does not stand up to scrutiny even historically.

In the contemporary world, it is nothing other than laughable. In the context of a highly open economy, dependent on imports of almost everything, the only effect of a devalued currency is inflationary pressure and an increased trade deficit. This policy approach almost qualifies as a definition of insanity.

We don’t need to wait to judge Brexit, because any clear-thinking and informed person can see outright what a disaster this is almost certain to be.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Britain as a free trade country"

The ECHR is an international human rights treaty that is independent of the EU and predates it. If the UK denounces the ECHR as well as leaving the EU it is setting itself up as another North Korea. Every single country in Europe — including Russia and Turkey — is in the ECHR. Write your own laws!

We are living at a moment when an old economic settlement is in crisis, but a new settlement has yet to be formed.

Unless the US and Europe can find common ground the prospect of chaos and infighting is too high for comfort as no other country or group of countries are waiting in the wings with ideas and economic power to lead. Some decades down the road the US and Europe will still account for more than 1/3 of global Gross Domestic Product — maybe more.

The politics of the future will belong to those leaders both in Europe and Britain who are prepared to face up to our present problems and future challenges.

Britain’s future is a nostalgic past that never really existed.

Yes, this is the way forward for “Poverty UK” — back to the 1950s! Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Britain as a free trade country"













, , ,


( A Disturbing Twelve minute read)

With a world that is in a categorical state of chaos ignoring the fact the climate is already altered can not continue.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of climate change effects"

It is certainly too late to stop all climate change.

Climate change is not an on-off switch. It is a continuing process. Emitting greenhouse gases is a lot like overflowing a bathtub. Even a slow trickle will eventually flood the room.

By continuing to delay significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we risk handing both an impossible financial and technological burden to future generations.

They have to realize that every decision they make now impacts all species’ chances, and by not acting – by allowing the status quo to continue – we will not only lose nature’s ability to rapidly adapt in future but our also.

Our children and grandchildren may be unable to understand how we negotiated such an arrangement on their behalf.

The era of top-down carbon markets, unlimited unit supply and rising domestic emissions has ended. Right now, only governments can purchase international emissions reductions.

We cannot and must not rely on international markets to set our future domestic emission price with carbon credits. Nor can we rely on International agreements such as the Paris Climate deal and the Kyoto Protocol, they are only having a marginal effect. 

Despite the avoidance of millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions through use of renewable energy, increased efficiency and conservation efforts, the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains high.

True climate sensitivity will only become manifest on a time scale of centuries, due to effects that researchers call “slow climate feedbacks.”


Because climate change is unlikely to proceed in a linear way.

Because it is not just scientists fear “tipping points” in the climate system. There is also tipping points in social, economic and political systems.

This is where we are to-day.

So far we have experienced about 1.1℃ of average global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Over this time atmospheric CO₂ levels have risen from 280ppm to 410ppm – and the equivalent of more than 450ppm after factoring in the effects of all the other greenhouse gases besides CO₂.

While wildfires radical shifting forest habitats we looking at a greening globe as plants grow faster in response to rising carbon dioxide.

We are looking at rising sea levels, submerging  low-lying island nations. We are already seeing wars over water, and we will be seeing millions of climate refugees.

There is little understanding that electric vehicles will be in the main pollution shifters- from the tail pipe to power generation stations.

If we can convince people that climate change is real and important, then surely they will act:

No they will not.

Critically, if people thought acting on climate change would improve society it would matter if they believed it was happening or not, or whether it was important. And it would not also matter what political ideology they held.

You might think if action on climate change reduces pollution or stimulates economic development, people who value clean air or economic growth might support climate change action, even if they are unconvinced or unconcerned about climate change itself. Issues like pollution and poor health being commonly invoked as co-benefits of addressing climate change, reducing pollution, poverty and disease are the weakest motivator of climate change action.

Although mitigating climate change will produce these health and pollution benefits, these don’t appear to strongly motivate people’s willingness to act. In addition there is the possibility of unknown effects –- those that are hard to predict because the planet’s climate is such a complex system where strong regional variability is the norm.

Making society more caring is a strong motivator for action across the globe, whereas promoting development varied in its effects across countries. Developing countries are already being paid in cash and technology for not using ozone-destroying chemicals in refrigerators and air-conditioning systems.

If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change?

In order to stop the accumulation of heat, we would have to eliminate not just carbon dioxide emissions, but all greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. So if we stop emitting carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels today, it’s not the end of the story for global warming. In any event, it’s not possible to stop emitting carbon dioxide right now. Despite significant advances in renewable energy sources, total demand for energy accelerates.

The importance of climate change as a public issue has been slipping in countries such as the United States, and is given a relatively low priority across the world.

Future emissions may be dominated by large developing countries like China and India. While neither can be blamed for climate change so far, they clearly have to be part of the solution.

Humans have pumped over 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere since 1750. It is not just the amount, but the rate at which this CO₂ has been added.

The industrialized nations have already emitted enough carbon dioxide and humanity cannot afford for the developing world to take the same path.

With MR Dump in the USA denying that US alone is responsible this is now probably the biggest challenge.

So a deal has to be done that is binding fair and achievable not just verbal rhetoric.

It will require large flows of technology and cash to the developing world.

Ecosystems are altered by natural and human-made occurrences. As they recover, it will be in a different climate from that in which they evolved. The climate in which they recover will not be stable; it will be continuing to warm. There will be no new normal, only more change.

We won’t go back to the past. Rather than trying to recover the past, we need to be thinking about best possible futures.

Communicate climate change to the public in more convincing ways:

The real key is to ensure that climate change initiatives directly benefit the pocket of the individual.

How can this be achieved?


Place a blanket World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all stock exchange transactions. On all High Frequency Trading. On all Sovereignty Wealth Funds Acquisitions. On all Foreign Exchange Transactions over lets say $50,000.


Establish a new World Aid Organisation totally transparent and free of United Nations Veto to manage this perpetually funded.


This organisation uses Capitalist Greed for profit by issuing Green Bonds with a guaranteed return. It authorities non repayable loans to all projects that tackles climate change. Subsidizes Solar panels production to reduce costs. Helps re-settlement.

While these costs will be spread over 80 years, this will also be a period in which the global population will increase from seven billion to perhaps 11 billion and beyond.  Humanity will need to grow enough crops to feed these billions while fueling BECCS schemes (Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage)  at a time when climate change will already be impacting food production.

Could this be achieved:

In politics, most things can be done if there is the will.

The more big investors and companies report on the impacts of climate change, the more information will be available for everyone. You and I will be able to better understand what role our retirement savings are playing in tackling climate change.

It  less obvious how climate change policies could help create communities where people care more for each other.“Top-down” policies such as a carbon tax or emissions trading aren’t traditionally the stuff that helps build communities.

However, policies that support “bottom-up” initiatives have this potential, such as engaging local communities in climate change activities that build friendships and strengthen networks. People will be motivated to act on climate change when they think it would lead to scientific and economic advances (development), and when it will help create a society where people cared more for each other (benevolence).


The New World Organisation should have its own TV Channel. What gets measured gets managed, including climate change.

Blocking out the sun to reduce global warming – an idea still in the making as is the hope that Artificial intelligence will come to or rescue.

All comments or suggestions welcome. All like clicks chucked in the bin.



( A Ten Minute Read)

What will Sparks’ it?

Will artificial intelligence bring us utopia or destruction?

Some of hypotheses are undeniably hysterical, for sure, but the consequences will be more terrifying, and indefensible, than we have ever seen before.

It’s always tempting to predict death and destruction, because you’ll be at least a little bit right and no one will fault you if you’re wrong.

So will it be a clash of civilizations, severe climate change resulting in climate mitigation; resource depletion, a populist uprising. The development of robotic soldiers with the ability to wage war without putting troops on the front line. Computer glitches causing corporations wars; or diplomatic misunderstandings, all of which can lead to war. Terrorism, inequality, and internal political or civil strife can also create the pressure for war.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were only a few hundred Islamist fighters in the Hindu Kush mountains. Fast forward through 16 years of the war on terror costing some $4,000bn (£3,300bn) and leaving 1.3 million dead, and the number of terrorists is currently about 100,000. Even on its own terms, the war on terror has been an abysmal failure. How on earth did this happen?

If civilization conflicts are not the least of our worries there are indeed a vast verity of triggers.

The Trump transition is likely to exacerbate US-China tensions. Trump has threatened a trade war with China. Kim Jong Un decides to attack his neighbors in the South Pacific and Trump decides to fire back.

The Ukrainian crisis was preceded by two decades of NATO expansionism up to the borders of Russia and now it is widely recognized that Russia is waging a campaign of covert political manipulation across the United States, Europe and the Middle East.

The original post-war European Union project was based around peace, social justice and harmony. The unraveling of this project might be Brexit accompanied by rising nationalism, which is likely to exacerbate the dangers of war on a continent with a fraught history of bloody conflict.

The Middle East cauldron centered around Isis and the Syrian war.

The Syrian war has seen allies – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – arming and funding radical Jihadist groups, such as the al-Nusra front. The terrorist attacks in Europe have demonstrated the difficulty in containing the spill-over. The Syrian war has seen the return of great-power politics with the involvement of Russia. This contamination has the potential for a wider conflict in which western countries could be drawn in.

India and Pakistan could go to war Article Image

Take your pick.

Mine is in keeping with the default operational mode of capitalism.

One might even argue that capitalism often resolves systemic economic crises through war. After all, a war economy with militarization, mobilization, full employment and jingoism can be viewed as the ultimate solution to economic woes and social unrest.

We are now at the beginning of Technology that is overseeing an extraordinary re-distribution of wealth that is tilting society off its axis.

The richest 1 percent have almost 40 percent of our worlds wealth, while the bottom 90 percent have 73 percent of the debt.

This is largely the result of technology.

And just wait until the work force is truly affected by the rise of robots and automation.

You don’t have to look too far back into history to see that when the marginalized have had it with the system, it doesn’t take a lot to set flame to tinder.

The emerging technologies like industrial robots, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are advancing at a rapid pace, but there has been little attention to their impact on employment and public policy. So technology is likely to be at the center of the next major geopolitical battle.

The anti-immigration, anti-one percent, anti-capitalism and anti-everything else we’re seeing right now isn’t just going to go away in a society where people feel their voices are not being heard.

The next major war, wouldn’t be fought with bombs, men, or even robots. It wouldn’t be waged on a battlefield or in the sky.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF COMPUTER WARS"

Instead, it will be a silent war.

During the past couple of decades, most of the world’s private and public infrastructure had become predominantly digital.

The next major war will decimate that infrastructure.

Water-treatment facilities, oil pipelines, dams, electrical grids, telecommunications platforms, food shipments, public and private transportation, traffic lights, prisons, every single drip of media—and a long, long list of other things we need for survival but take for granted—will all be vulnerable.

Our smartphones and computers will be black rectangles. The Internet: poof! Water infrastructure will stop working, power plants will go offline. Crops, which are now operated by digital irrigation systems, will die.

And that will all be in the first few hours.

Imagine what will happen in the coming days, weeks, and months. We will essentially be sent back centuries. Computer hackers—possibly from an adversarial country—taking down power plants, water systems, the Internet, or private infrastructure. Real cyber warfare could destroy actual machines.

The first technology revolution caused World War I. The second technology revolution caused World War II. This is the third technology revolution.

So could it in fact trigger a Third World War.

As soon as 2025, large parts of the world will experience perennial water shortages, by 2050, the world’s populations will be a third to a half again as large as today. Put rising population and rising incomes together and, experts tell us, by 2050 global food needs will double, with water requirements going up accordingly.

[It takes 2,400 liters to produce a hamburger, common in many middle-income diets, it takes about 40 liters of water to produce a slice of bread, a staple of low-income diets.] On a humanitarian level, the possibilities are devastating.

Climate change requiring a shift in the way we think about the global distribution of resources.

Some will say that technology will help to get us out of the sustainability jam, but it will be nothing more than a quick fix to the vast graveyards of abject inequality created by algorithms for profit.

This is why we must now create a new World Organisation to vet all technology. (See previous posts)

World leaders have a duty to educate people to prevent the pain caused by a rapid rise in automation and artificial intelligence.

Instead we see the transition of Western democracy to oligarchy and the descent into soft fascism is under way. Citizens will need to participate actively, rather than as passive consumers, to demand an end to this cycle of violence from governments and to defend the assault on democratic processes which are already having its foundations rocked by Social Media filtered platforms that have profit as their mantra.

In today’s ultra-globalized and ultra-specialized economy? The level of economic adaptation — even for large countries like Russia and the United States with lots of land and natural resources — required to adapt to a world war would be crushing, and huge numbers of business and livelihoods would be wiped out. War could break out in a number of places, drawing in combatants in unpredictable ways. Combatants very rarely start a global war on purpose; the leaders of the world’s most powerful nations need to be vigilant about the threat of crisis escalation.

The spread of internet technology and social media has brought the world much closer together. Today, people from enemy countries can come together in cyberspace and find out that the “enemy” is not so different.

YouTube and Facebook makes it much more difficult for governments to carry out large-scale military aggression’s, but on the other hand all it took during World War I was one shot. Maybe all it will take for World War III is one line of code.

We shouldn’t scoff at the warnings that something like this could happen one day.

Statesmanship must go beyond diplomacy, in particular to championing new agricultural technologies. Without growing more food with less water (land, too) the water-war surprises will come, perhaps not in one year, perhaps not in four, but soon, and long into the future. Even the big threats—nuclear warfare or an ecological catastrophe, perhaps following from climate change—aren’t existential in the sense that they would wipe us out entirely. And the current bugaboo, in which our electronic progeny exceed us and decide they can live without us, can be avoided by unplugging them.

The new technologies may be self-accelerating, but they are not self-determining. I would say that the odds are good for our survival, providing that AI does not acquire the ability not just to think like us but to self-replicate.

The revolutionary potential of future technologies is to change Homo sapiens itself, including our bodies and our minds, and not merely our vehicles and weapons. The most amazing thing about the future won’t be the spaceships, but the beings flying them. 

The truth is that from the standpoint of morality, like many other standpoints, we are hardly adapted to the world in which we live.

Technology will be the result of ever renegotiated agreement with society. Because they are so potent, their paths may undergo wild oscillations, but I think the trend will be toward the dynamic middle: much slower than the optimists expect, much faster than the pessimists think humanity can bear.

However the cold war may be over, but the Doomsday Machine that came out of the confrontation with the Soviets is still with us—and on a hair-trigger.

As global conflicts grow increasingly messy, narratives spun by propagandists and troll factories will wreak havoc via social media, state news organs and even the global free press.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.





( A ten minute read)

The EU project suffers from not having any real democratic legitimacy – without constitutional accountability, it is heading for trouble.

The unaccountable nature of the EU, coupled with the hardship caused by the “austerity for some, gravy trains for others” policies and the failure to either deal with the still-mounting debt crisis, and the real problems caused by all this and the lack of support for any further social, economic and political integration, it’s debatable whether the EU will even survive for long… just wait till the next crisis hits.

A self-created bubble for the MEP’s where their loyalty to the EU above the people is assured by massive wages, expenses and pensions and if kicked out by the electorate in elections they’ll get other jobs in the Commission or the wider EU structure.

On top of all this we have Strasbourg a symbol of waste and stupidity – the perfect example of all that is wrong with the EU. True democracy at work. No one gets a vote on it.European Parliament strasbourg

Approximately 10 per cent of the Parliament’s annual budget, between €156 and €204 million is spent to sustain this traveling circus.

The annual CO2 emissions associated with the transfers to and from the three working locations – Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg – is estimated to be between 11,000 and 19,000 tonnes. That is the equivalent of 12,000 cars driving around the circumference of the world. (Is it not ironic that the European Parliament voted to reduce CO2 emissions by 2030?)

Between 3,500 and 4,000 people every month set out for Strasbourg – this includes MEPs, assistants, political group staff, parliament staff, interpreters and translators. This is done by trains, by air and by road. In order to transport the 2,500 trunks and all the equipment required for the plenary session a large convey of trucks travel the 409 kilometers from Brussels to Strasbourg. This is then reversed four days later.

Among the costs are £250,000 a year to transport the plastic boxes containing documents, diaries and other items from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again.

£2.5 million bill for relocating freelance translators from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again, including costs of travel, accommodation and other expenses.

Depending on how you read it, you might find the E.U.’s tendency to translate nearly everything it does into all 24 of its official languages a testimony to its internationalist glory or a wasteful use of resources. By E.U. custom, all public E.U. documents are translated into every language. All high-level E.U. meetings are the same way. The European Commission says it employs 1,750 linguists, 600 full-time interpreters and 3,000 freelancers.

In Strasbourg, extra money is needed for computers and IT support and for maintenance and security of the sleek parliament building, which was completed in 1999. In total, the cost of looking after the French buildings and infrastructure and other charges comes to about £50 million a year.

About 100 people are employed in Strasbourg full-time, even though the European Parliament meets for 12 sessions, each lasting four days, a total of only 48 days each year.

Hotels in Strasbourg typically double their rates when the EU comes to stay. Last week, the Hilton Hotel in Strasbourg was offering rooms at £82 for Sunday night, but this rose to a cheapest rate of £161 a night for Monday, when the sessions begin.

Naturally, the French are totally opposed to ANY CHANGE not only because of the €20 Million it provides to the Strasbourg economy each year but also because it is an important European symbol within France.

Why does the European parliament move from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month?

It is a disgrace that €9.5 million is wasted in this way every month.

Strasbourg is the official seat of the European Parliament, so the EU treaties would have to be changed if that were no longer the case. A final decision would rest with the member countries.

The so-called traveling circus that sees MEPs and staff decamp from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month has long been a bone of contention. It costs the institution some €114 million a year to make the trip.

In a November 2013 resolution, MEPs called for a treaty change to allow Parliament to decide where it sits.

Over three-quarters, of MEPS from across the political spectrum, want to abolish this practice but they have no power to change it. Under the Lisbon Treaty the parliament is legally bound to meet 12 times a year in Strasbourg. A session takes place every month – except in August but a second session in September or October replaces it. This can only be changed if unanimous agreement on the issue is reached at a European Council Summit – a meeting of heads of Governments of each Member State.

The EU’s national governments unanimously decided in 1992 to fix the seats of the EU institutions permanently. This decision also affected the working arrangements for the Parliament: its official seat and the venue for most of the plenary sessions would be Strasbourg; parliamentary committees would have their meetings in Brussels; and Parliament’s Secretariat (its staff) would be based in Luxembourg. In 1997 this whole arrangement was incorporated into the EU treaty.

Any change in the current system would need to be part of a new treaty, agreed unanimously by all 28 member states and ratified by each of their national parliaments. However only with a workable alternative for Strasbourg could a French veto be avoided.

I can fully appreciate that if you move an existing institution, the member state which currently houses it will also have to be compensated, setting off a chain reaction. So you have to give proper consideration to all of the links in the chain before you come up with a proposal.

But will it change?

For the foreseeable future, I honestly don’t think so. Unfortunately, France will never agree, which holds a veto.

The continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has for most EU citizens become a symbolic, negative issue (…), especially at a time when the financial crisis has led to serious and painful expenditure cuts in the member states”, said the resolution, which was approved by 483 votes to 141, with 34 abstentions.

France and Germany got everything they wanted and everyone else got shafted.. French MEPs could quit the largest political group in the European Parliament if their colleagues support a plan to scrap the assembly’s base in Strasbourg. It’s up to us with the power of Social Media to demand a stop to this blatant waste of our hard-earned money.

How can we achieve this:

There is only one way and that is by bombarding Emmanuel Macron the new French President through Social Media with the following message.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the new french president"

Not a one day bombardment but a sustained bombardment.

 [Palais de L’Élysée

55 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré

75008 Paris, France.

Your Excellency,

The Strasbourg-Brussels merry-go-round has gone on long enough, it’s deeds, not words, that count.  With due respect The European Parliament’s travelling circus represents all that is wrong about the EU in the eyes of electorates across Europe: A useless and huge cost for our European community. 

A recent study by the European Parliament shows that €103 million (£85 million) could be saved each year if all European Parliament operations were transferred from Strasbourg to Brussels.

As a taxpayer I have no objection to maintaining the status quo, providing the total costs are financed by the French Tax payer.  

They say the definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. The unnecessary waste and the political stalemate that perpetuates it must stop. This craziness has to stop.

Yours sincerely:    ………………………………….  ]  EU Citizen.

Optional PS:

Why not give everyone a smart phone with a voice recognition app. Press Translate. A saving of £2.5 million. ( 750 linguists, 600 full-time interpreters and 3,000 freelancers.)










( A Ten minute read)

These day’s bashing free-market capitalism is high on the agenda and its no wonder as we indeed need to understand its shortcomings. Yet criticizing capitalism should not blind us to its advantages and attainments.

If we ignore the potential ecological meltdown and measure success by production and growth we could say with some degree of accuracy that perpetual growth and cooperation has to a great extent being achieved.

We’re surfing a technology tsunami!

New technologies are changing the way the world operates, the way people live, and the way we do business. Nothing will ever be the same, as customers take control of relationships. But the connectivity explosion has also created a global trust crisis. Who do we trust – the local pharmacy, or Google? Our local politicians, or a stranger we have never met on Facebook?

Power is shifting – moving from institutions, from governments and big companies, into the hands of connected individuals. This is completely reshaping societies, economics, politics and business. And this is giving rise to a generation of new, nimble, innovative competitors across the entire business market, who are challenging the existing players with different models and new rules.

The world as you know it is rapidly changing: AI, Robotics, Drones, Block chain, 3 D printers, Self-Driving Cars, Unlimited energy, the list goes on and on.

If on an almost daily basis, there is a sense that the world is moving faster, it’s because we are! Entire industries will be rocked to the core and some will be destroyed overnight, while others will be created.

But at what price.

The new modern deal with Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and the coming automation is demanding that we give up meaning as the free-market cloaked in Algorithms is making Capitalism blind and invisible.

We humans remain as fickle as the wind.

Who ever determines the meaning of our actions, whether they be good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, will have the authority to tell us what to think and how to behave.

Our source of meaning and authority is now being relocated into filtered wireless platforms which are in the process of reshaping logic that has no sensitivity or experience.  Indeed we are heading to a new form of living that is taking no measure of feelings that can be turned into wisdom. Unfortunately it remains impossible to take into account the experiences of all to weight them against each other in a fair way. If we want a fair and just world it will be only achieved by common action.  It is impossible to argue that all human experiences are equally valuable.

To the  best of our scientific understanding, determinism and randomness have divided the entire cake between them.

Our feelings as you know provide meaning not only for our privater lives , but also for social and political processes.

In the past world history was shape by small number of forward thinking people not by the masses. To day we are all carrying brain scanners call smartphones all of which are in the business of predicting people’s desires and making decisions well before we become aware of them.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the future world"

Lacking freewill is the main aim of every un vetted algorithm and app that are designed to generate profit.

With direct brain stimulation becoming the new scientific world, with its technologies translating into everyday activities and economic structures we will need new religious beliefs and new political institutions.

Many inventions are born in the lab and never make it into the consumer market, while others evolve beyond the pace of putting good regulations on their use. For example Twitter Periscope app being used to groom children.  Or facial recognition apps that will soon be enforcing open air prisons turning us all into second class Google citizens.     

We have the technology to put computers almost anywhere and in almost anything surely its time we create a New World Organisation which is self financing and totally transparent to vet all technology. ( see previous posts) 

Machines could soon have access to our innermost thoughts.

Our thoughts and actions could actually be hijacked by a form of media that makes us think we’re getting what we want, when really, we’re going for something our brains may only think is supposed to be good.

Data and the machines and algorithms used to manage and make sense of it could largely replace independent decision-making — either large or small — and it is happening at such a speed that it’s sometimes hard to remember the data isn’t in control.

People still control the data, but just who has this control and what they do with it will become an ongoing challenge.

Will there be a day when you say “I can’t read your mind, you know!” and the reply will be “Oh, stop it — of course you can!”?

Picture a tiny bit of a thing on an already minuscule computer chip. Something microscopic with the power to think like a computer without the need of complex circuitry and capable of being moved by light or sound: That is quantum technology simplified.

Lack of opportunity and lack of hope for the youth are practically boiling over — or, at least, are simmering and ready to explode.

Maybe you aren’t comfortable with all of the futurist predictions and even the current rate of technological advance, and that’s OK. You can be yourself and interact in the world in a fairly low-tech way while allowing a surrogate, avatar or robot to live your online and tech life for you.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the future world"

How wants a faceless world without understanding intelligence or cognition first.

We need to be concerned about the unintended consequences in the types of AI that are no being developed before they are trusted.

Being a scientist doesn’t absolve you from humanity.

We need a clear idea of what we want AI to do or become. There is little point in automation pushing people out of jobs, making people who own the machines richer and every one else poorer.

We are now looking down the barrel of Colliding Worlds: 

Linear vs. Exponential. Physical vs. Virtual. People vs. Machines. Ownership vs. Access. Limits vs. Abundance, and so much more.

This is not a scientific issue; it’s a political and socioeconomic problem that we as society must solve.

The conservation of all forms of life is a shared responsibility.

The big question will be why should super intelligence keep us around.

If we don’t find a way of distributing our wealth in all forms better we will fuel capitalism with artificial intelligence serving very few.

A gloomy underworld of tech-savvy ne’-er-do-wells using their genius for profit.

Three recent breakthroughs moved artificial intelligence from the trivial days to where we are today. Cheap parallel computing, Big Data, Better algorithms.

Taken together, these three developments created the ideal conditions for AI to evolve.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of AI"

All comments Appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.



( A thirteen minute read)

THE European Union (EU) is “unified only in name” and faces the “danger of disintegration” if it does not tackle the obvious reforms needed. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu gravy train"

The 2008 financial meltdown and subsequent sovereign debt crisis and then the 2015 migrant crisis demonstrated that the EU is unified only in name. Brexit and the idea of sovereignty it symbolizes is a mighty catalyst for all member states’ citizens to rethink their idea of Europe and national sovereignty.

While the majority of us scrape a living i have always held that if you want an organisation to operate you must attract the best by paying above the odds. The EU has repeatedly attracted controversy over the hugely lavish pay and perks it affords to its staff, which are in stark contrast to the experience of workers across the continent who have suffered years of pay freezes.

THOUSANDS of pounds of European Union (EU) taxpayers’ money are going straight into politicians’ coffers as MEPs are not using office allowances. As well as the £3,783 handed to them by the EU for an office space, MEPs are paid £7,392 a month – £88,704 annually – and get £21,057 to spend on office staff.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu gravy train"

Surely its time that we the tax payer on social media demand a stop to the EU Gravy train loop holes by demanding that all expenses, payments are transparent and subject to scrutiny. 

The complete lack of transparency in the EU means that eurocrats think they can get away with living the high life at our expense. 

EUROPEAN Union bureaucrats put a staggering £85 million on credit cards issued to pay for meals and hotels – in just one year.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, was offered a salary five times higher than his pay in Warsaw.

A whopping £94 m is proposed to be spent on “information and communication” in the 2018 budget, including £28 m on promoting the next European elections.

On top of that the EU’s burgeoning fleet of electric cars is to be expanded by a third, from 60 to 90, and an eye-watering £3 m would be spent on making Irish an official language in Brussels.

A total of 249 offices out of the potential 748 do not exist or could not be found.

Only 133 current MEPs across the 28 member states revealed to the team what they pay in office rent. 249 said they either have no offices or refused to reveal their addresses, or their locations could not be found, while 19 said they work from home.

The European Parliament also does not keep a record of politicians’ offices in their home countries.

MEPs are also sub-renting offices from their own local political party branches, with 38 confirming their offices were in that situation.

 “The EU Commission has to revise its Code of Conduct completely and put in place a credible, impartial, ethics body to stop the gravy train.

More than £17.4 million of EU taxpayers’ money has been blown on giving people bargain getaways to Brussels and Strasbourg, an official report into the extravagance of the European Parliament has revealed.

 As well as not having to declare spending, there also does not appear to be a definitive set of rules as to how allowances should be spent, with MEPs interpreting how to use the cash differently.

Some used the entire office allowance for office equipment, internet subscriptions and other work-related costs. Others used their “general expenditure” on travel expenses for visitors, charity donations and national party payments. Some politicians transfer their entire EU allowance to their national party – which under Brussels rules is not allowed.

 Nick Aiossa, EU policy officer at Transparency International, said: “I could never imagine MEPs giving out 40 million a year to member states for cohesion policy, without one receipt.“There is a level of hypocrisy on the financial management score that we find is quite astounding.
While Brexit will shed billions from the EU coffers the Brussels gravy train continues full speed ahead.

The European Parliament is a great source of income both before and after political tenure

MORE than thirty per cent of the EU’s ex-MEPs have been re-hired as lobbyists.

Donald Tusk earns £22,000-a-month as an EU commissioner plus pension and benefits.

MEPs spent £1 million in one year on jollies around the world including trips to Mauritius, New York, Mexico and Cambodia.

Interpreters employed full-time by the Parliament earn the equivalent of up to €500 an hour because they have so little work to do.

More than £700,000 was lavished on an award ceremony for European cinema modeled on the Oscars.

The Parliament spent £1 million promoting itself on Facebook and £3.9 million on an online TV channel watched only 9.9 million times.

Concerns have been raised that a £40 million new museum to ‘promote awareness of European identity’ will replicate exhibitions in an existing visitor center.

Another scam they have is to buy a cheap ticket to fly to Brussels and then put in the expenses for first class ticket £277.80 each way first class £45 each way cheap flight.

The above I am sure IF WE LOOKED AT EU PENSIONS is just a drop in the ocean of fiddles.