What made you go WTF today?

[Flixy]

Odd problem in Amsterdam: white heroin is being sold as cocaïne, with lethal results. The city is taking the problem serious enough to explicitly warn tourists against buying cocaïne and telling them it can kill them. Today 3 young Brits were found dead in their hotel room. The odd thing is that white heroin has a higher street value than cocaïne, so it's unintelligible why someone would sell it as cocaïne.

Thought I'd share the public displays:

[Hazir]

Yeah, they're all over the place. Combined with hundreds of A5 sized posters.

[Loki]

To continue the inexplicable racism trend from my last post: http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2...ites-3-graphs/

In case anyone's wondering, this is from a legitimate study. It's where most Americanists get their data from.

[GGT]

You mean most Americans aren't basing their opinions on fact, but on stereotypes or biases?

Gosh, don't tell the DNC or RNC.....or their paid lobbyists or donors. That might upset The Force......

[Loki]

If people based their views on facts, most of those groups would have no reason for their existence.

[Loki]

http://nypost.com/2014/12/14/stuyves...-stock-market/

Edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/ny...lls-apart.html And it's a hoax.

[Aimless]

http://www.economist.com/news/britai...atizzaboutfizz

.On December 2nd, at what otherwise might have been a dull committee meeting, Sir Malcolm Jack, a former clerk of the Commons, was asked why the catering services of the House of Lords, the upper house, and the House of Commons could not have been merged to save money. He replied: “The lords feared that the quality of champagne would not be as good if they chose a joint service.” The astonished chair of the committee, Jack Straw, spoke for most of the nation as he gasped: “Did you make that up?” Sir Malcolm assured him he did not.

[Timbuk2]

Why is that a WTF?

What do the peasants know about the quality of champagne? It is the chosen tipple of the landed gentry, not the common man. One cannot just 'muck in'! Heavens above man. Next thing you know they'll be asking to serve 'beer' or 'pies' in the Lords.

[Flixy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ance-industry/

A few things.. How tight can one be?! Make a million a year, dodge your train fares. But at the same time, why does something you do outside of work, not related to your work at all, become a reason not only to lose your job but to be banned from the industry? And now I'm curious how many bankers who were, say, connected to LIBOR fraud or the HSBC laundering, etc., were banned for life.

Oh, and how can you get that big a fine in the first place? Whenever I have been caught without a ticket (because I forgot, of course) I would just get a fine, have to buy a new ticket, and that's it - they did not investigate whether I had been dodging fares for years.

[Timbuk2]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ance-industry/

A few things.. How tight can one be?! Make a million a year, dodge your train fares. But at the same time, why does something you do outside of work, not related to your work at all, become a reason not only to lose your job but to be banned from the industry? And now I'm curious how many bankers who were, say, connected to LIBOR fraud or the HSBC laundering, etc., were banned for life.

Oh, and how can you get that big a fine in the first place? Whenever I have been caught without a ticket (because I forgot, of course) I would just get a fine, have to buy a new ticket, and that's it - they did not investigate whether I had been dodging fares for years.

A few things here.

- The reason why he has been investigated by the FCA and subsequently banned from working in a regulated Financial Services company is because he holds a directorship as a Managing Director of a Company, and is named as an 'Approved' person holding a CF30 Customer Function. Holding a directorship and being an approved person here carries with it certain responsibilities - among them but not limited to behaving with a certain financial integrity, and honesty. He failed on both counts. This is explicit in the FCA findings in this case, which have been published.

- This may not have garnered much attention really, were it not for;
1. the financial services industry itself being under intensive scrutiny at present, due to such public failings as we're all aware of.
2. the public baying for blood over perceived city greed, and the FCA needing to be seen to deliver in its promises to rein it in.
3. the scale of this man's dishonesty. This wasn't skipping a fare here or there - this was persistent and concerted evasion over 5 years - as he has fully admitted to.
4.the FCA (and its sister the PRU) both widening and deepening the controls and measures they have in place, not just for financially-regulated companies but also for those who manage/direct such companies, as our man here did. The FCA has put in place a 'Fit and Proper Test' for such people, and as you can imagine, he failed it.

- The fine is indeed punitive, and does not actually reflect the amount evaded over the 5 year period.

[Flixy]

Thx for clearing some points up, didn't know he was a director. I already figured it got so much attention (and possibly such a punishment) because of your point nr 2. Still , it sounds also like an easy target to punish to look better in the press, I still wonder how many bankers have been suspended for life for actual job related misbehavior, I tried Google but couldn't really find that.

And I understand the fine is punitive, I am mostly surprised there was a case at all. Like I said, all my experience with fare dodging, also what I've witnessed, always resulted in a simple fine, and in rare cases being kicked off the train. Never been aware of any investigations into serial fare dodgers.




http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/...d-war-diplomat

Reninded me of this

[Khendraja'aro]

And I understand the fine is punitive, I am mostly surprised there was a case at all. Like I said, all my experience with fare dodging, also what I've witnessed, always resulted in a simple fine, and in rare cases being kicked off the train. Never been aware of any investigations into serial fare dodgers.

In principle, you could go to jail in Germany for a single instance of willful fare dodging (§ 265a StGB). In practice, you need to be a serial fare dodger.

[Flixy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...h-9914412.html

"The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome," she said. "The reason they want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are. This administration wants to have this discussion to show us how we’re not awesome."

What a great analysis.

[Timbuk2]

That makes hilarious reading.

Fox News ... what a joke

[Flixy]

That makes hilarious reading.

Fox News ... what a joke

[Flixy]

Not really a WTF, but:

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-u...e-2014-12?IR=T

Good to see corruption is punished, but I am somewhat confused that corruption in Indonesia, Bahamas, etc., by a French company, results in a record fine by the US DOJ. I mean, considering the damage was done to other countries, shouldn't the money go there (or does it get funneled to other countries?).

[wiggin]

Flixy, I think there are some reasonable questions about the US government's increasing use of regulatory pressure against multinational corporations, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you suggest it is. The US (correctly) maintains that it can regulate companies that have a substantial presence in the US, even if their headquarters are elsewhere - Alstom certainly has largish US operations. So that doesn't bother me as much as other aspects of 'extraterritoriality' in US law.

The separate question of how a company can be fined for bribery that happened in a different country is a broader one about figuring out the best way to cut down on corruption and bribery. In many of the bribe receiving countries, there is little to no accountability (let alone leverage), so the companies will never be called to task. The US, however, is such a large and indispensable market (not to mention controlling the money flows of most of these companies) that they have the clout and ability to go after 'bad actors' who have a substantial US presence. Whether the money gets to the countries where the bribery took place is not really the point - the fines are not at all intended to be compensation for the damage caused to a country, but punitive measures taken to deter further wrongdoing. It might be nice if fines went into some sort of compensation fund, but that's not really the point. (It's also an open question who should be getting the compensation. Western competitors of the company that lost market share? Individuals in the corrupt country who are overpaying for goods? Governments that are getting undermined by foreign money?)

Similarly, it doesn't bother me too much when slimy banks that aren't US-headquartered get hunted down by the DOJ et al for e.g. sanctions busting, money laundering, etc. The BNP Paribas fine didn't bother me one whit - the US has the resources to detect the problem, the leverage to force the bank to comply, and since the US runs the global financial system, they're really the only game in town for enforcing this kind of thing. This is a bit more problematic than the Alstom case, however, since many of the banks that the US acts against don't have substantial US operations, but rather just use the US-based financial plumbing.

I do have a concern, though, about regulatory overreach. I have no doubt that most of the companies being socked with big fines nowadays have done all sorts of bad things. But almost every case is settled out of court, mostly because companies are terrified of the DOJ et al revoking their ability to do business and really dismantling them. It almost appears to be a shake-down in some respects, and there may be some value in companies getting their day in court - both to establish guilt, and to keep overzealous regulators from extorting companies for more fines.

A second concern revolves around overlapping regulatory jurisdictions for 'global' crimes. Just look at all of the fines in the financial industry for e.g. LIBOR fixing or the like. You get a bunch of different national and local regulators taking part in actions against a variety of companies, and the results are sometimes poorly coordinated and lack focus. For multinational companies, the regulatory picture is getting more and more complex, and better coordination on enforcement actions (and monitoring, for that matter) would be in order. I have no idea if there's a similar French or EU agency or law that targets bribery and corruption cases overseas, but it probably would have been better had the US DOJ coordinated their enforcement with EU/French regulators. This not only provides for a unified, carefully choreographed approach to the case, but it also strengthens institutions outside of the US that can then continue enforcement against against other local wrongdoers. Contrary to popular belief, enforcement shouldn't be about making money for the government, but rather about punishing and deterring corrupt actors; policy and enforcement need to reflect that.

[Flixy]

Flixy, I think there are some reasonable questions about the US government's increasing use of regulatory pressure against multinational corporations, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you suggest it is. The US (correctly) maintains that it can regulate companies that have a substantial presence in the US, even if their headquarters are elsewhere - Alstom certainly has largish US operations. So that doesn't bother me as much as other aspects of 'extraterritoriality' in US law.

The separate question of how a company can be fined for bribery that happened in a different country is a broader one about figuring out the best way to cut down on corruption and bribery. In many of the bribe receiving countries, there is little to no accountability (let alone leverage), so the companies will never be called to task. The US, however, is such a large and indispensable market (not to mention controlling the money flows of most of these companies) that they have the clout and ability to go after 'bad actors' who have a substantial US presence. Whether the money gets to the countries where the bribery took place is not really the point - the fines are not at all intended to be compensation for the damage caused to a country, but punitive measures taken to deter further wrongdoing. It might be nice if fines went into some sort of compensation fund, but that's not really the point. (It's also an open question who should be getting the compensation. Western competitors of the company that lost market share? Individuals in the corrupt country who are overpaying for goods? Governments that are getting undermined by foreign money?)

Similarly, it doesn't bother me too much when slimy banks that aren't US-headquartered get hunted down by the DOJ et al for e.g. sanctions busting, money laundering, etc. The BNP Paribas fine didn't bother me one whit - the US has the resources to detect the problem, the leverage to force the bank to comply, and since the US runs the global financial system, they're really the only game in town for enforcing this kind of thing. This is a bit more problematic than the Alstom case, however, since many of the banks that the US acts against don't have substantial US operations, but rather just use the US-based financial plumbing.

I do have a concern, though, about regulatory overreach. I have no doubt that most of the companies being socked with big fines nowadays have done all sorts of bad things. But almost every case is settled out of court, mostly because companies are terrified of the DOJ et al revoking their ability to do business and really dismantling them. It almost appears to be a shake-down in some respects, and there may be some value in companies getting their day in court - both to establish guilt, and to keep overzealous regulators from extorting companies for more fines.

A second concern revolves around overlapping regulatory jurisdictions for 'global' crimes. Just look at all of the fines in the financial industry for e.g. LIBOR fixing or the like. You get a bunch of different national and local regulators taking part in actions against a variety of companies, and the results are sometimes poorly coordinated and lack focus. For multinational companies, the regulatory picture is getting more and more complex, and better coordination on enforcement actions (and monitoring, for that matter) would be in order. I have no idea if there's a similar French or EU agency or law that targets bribery and corruption cases overseas, but it probably would have been better had the US DOJ coordinated their enforcement with EU/French regulators. This not only provides for a unified, carefully choreographed approach to the case, but it also strengthens institutions outside of the US that can then continue enforcement against against other local wrongdoers. Contrary to popular belief, enforcement shouldn't be about making money for the government, but rather about punishing and deterring corrupt actors; policy and enforcement need to reflect that.

First of all, I understand it's not clear cut , that's why I posted here, hoping someone (like you) would post some more information, so thanks!

I appreciate the US has the clout and ability to go after corruption in countries where you can pretty much just get away with it (or bribe our way out of a bribery case, I suppose), and applaud that they do this. But given this is a French company, and France isn't exactly a banana country, I sortof expected that if it had not happened in the US, it should be prosecuted in France. It just 'seems' unfair that the countries where the corruption took place are the ones hurt by it, and in the end the US 'profits' from this (thoguh of course they also take the effort of the investigation and prosecution). I mean, especially to smaller countries these are not insignificant amounts of money.

Now I also do not know whether the EU/France have ways to go after foreign corruption, but I would think this is possible at the very least for companies based in their country. And especially when going after foreign companies, you might create an impression you are protecting your own companies and going after the foreign ones, or mixing with foreign policy (for example, this). Of course at the same time, reluctance of other countries to go after 'their' companies is a good reason why the US should keep doing it. And I agree that enforcement should not be about making money for the government but about punishing/deterring, but when fines start reaching these high numbers it probably does become a factor.

Regarding international cooperation, it does exist, I do not know the details about this case, but the fine for Rabobank (Dutch bank) in the LIBOR scandal was split 70/20/10 between the US, UK and The Netherlands. On the flipside, that deal did mean no personal prosecutions for involved traders that still worked at the bank, and if the goal is deterrence, maybe slightly lower fines, but prosecuting individuals as well would be more effective (if less profitable), since a couple of them only lost (part of) their bonuses, so essentially got away with it without very heavy consequences.

In the Alstom case, an article mentioned the UK is also starting a probe into their corruption, concerning Lithouania, India, Poland, and Tunesia, while the US find is about Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Taiwan, and the Bahamas; and that France, Switzerland, and Brazil are also investigating Alstom for corruption and bribery. It seems all a bit confusing which country gets to prosecute them for corruption in what part of the world. I assume it also depends on subsidiaries (and where those are based) and who exactly did what - which probably doesn't make things any clearer..

[Loki]

http://www.inquisitr.com/1699419/bla...g-a-free-pass/

[Hazir]

Just saw a woman in nikab enter an Istanbul night club. I think I've seen it all now.

[Lewkowski]

http://www.inquisitr.com/1699419/bla...g-a-free-pass/

Wow... just wow.

[GGT]

http://www.inquisitr.com/1699419/bla...g-a-free-pass/

The article didn't explain if those "failing grades" were because they attended protests, or if the protests affected their access to classes/libraries/tutors/tests.

WTF?

[Loki]

The people making the demands didn't differentiate.

[Flixy]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...essive-4921075

Aryan cows. Wow

[Khendraja'aro]

So, conspiracy theories. I just stumbled upon a new one: All those conspiracy theories were invented so that we would laugh at them and disregard the actually existing problems the conspiracy theories were aimed at.

We just went full meta, I guess.

[Aimless]

That's been my favourite conspiracy theory for years! It's probably a way to draw attention away from the other perfectly true conspiracy theories.

Russian psyops

[Flixy]

So, conspiracy theories. I just stumbled upon a new one: All those conspiracy theories were invented so that we would laugh at them and disregard the actually existing problems the conspiracy theories were aimed at.

We just went full meta, I guess.

Always one of my favourites!

I also like: All evidence that goes against the creation as described in the bible (created a few thousand years ago, floods, the whole lot), like older fossils, are planted by God (surely he can create a fossil that is older than the world, he's omnipotent!) to test your faith.

[Khendraja'aro]

Always one of my favourites!

I also like: All evidence that goes against the creation as described in the bible (created a few thousand years ago, floods, the whole lot), like older fossils, are planted by God (surely he can create a fossil that is older than the world, he's omnipotent!) to test your faith.

Well, I for one am just waiting for us to find a Dinosaur with a wristwatch.

[earthJoker]

So, conspiracy theories. I just stumbled upon a new one: All those conspiracy theories were invented so that we would laugh at them and disregard the actually existing problems the conspiracy theories were aimed at.

We just went full meta, I guess.

RT actually works just like that.

The interesting part about conspitacy starts at 2:20

[Flixy]

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/F...288739131.html

Real classy