BECKHAM TOO EXPENSIVE ?

The arrival of David Beckham at the Paris St. Germain football club has raised many eyebrows, if not a certain indignation.  He will be paid 800 000 euros per month for the next few months !!!  Ancelotti, the former Chelsea manager will be the new manager and he will be paid 500 000 euros per month !!!  Antoine Kombouaré has been thanked for his services !!!

At this particular point in time, everyone should know that PSG are the leaders by three points of the French Football Championship !!!

Perhaps Qatar Sports Investments, which bought PSG on 30 June 2011 are seeking a cast iron guarantee that PSG is a real "Winner" ?  Do they really want to "buy" the future ?

Furthermore, the Paris Council has decided to reduce the Subvention paid to PSG by 250 000 euros to 1250 000 euros. However, this paltry sum does not even cover the envisaged salary costs for one month which will be paid to Beckham and Ancelotti !!!

DOES ANYONE CONTROL BANKS ?

Theoretically Banks are controlled by their shareholders, but this is shrouded by more imperial considerations !!!


Government regulations and Central Bank rules, very simply said, greatly limit the independence of Directors who are coerced to follow the official "will".


The rules and controles in countries can vary greatly (e.g. in France and Britain) but it is clear that Banks should be rescued from bankruptcy if losses have been provoked by "Official Government Orders". 

What cannot, or should never be covered are losses from "losing bets" by Hedge Funds or Individual Speculators.   These operations are not "traditional banking investment operations" thus banks must control their "market operators" and gracefully accept to report any losses.  In fact, they never bleat when there are big profits !!!  They say nothing !!!     

Shareholders are however, excluded from many decisions concerning the abnormally high remuneration of Directors and Managers !!!


This is where Governments in fact, refuse to legislate !!!  Shareholders' rights are not protected !!!  There is never really any opportune moment for them to change any decision in this area !!!  At the Annual General Meeting it is clearly much too late.  This same situation exists in other sectors of operations.

Bonuses paid to some people, when the figure "gets out", are sometimes stupendously big !!! They are out of all proportion to what any shareholder might ever have imagined or expected !!!

Should all such "exceptional" payments not be based on a contract, officially filed when some one is engaged, and which is submitted to a vote or "explanation" at the AGM ?  Should shareholders not have a chance to be heard and to vote ?  

This concerns Banks but also other companies !!! The Government must act !!!   

      

HUNGARY IN THE EU, BUT WHO CARES ?

In the Hungarian elections in 2010, VIKTOR ORBAN's party won 52% of the votes but a two thirds majority in Parliament.  This has given him the freedom to do just what he wants in his country !!!


This former Russian "iron curtain" state, liberated in 1989 from the shackles of communism, amid scenes of euphoria, was accepted as a member of the EU in 2004.

Now inflationary problems in Hungary are part of the "justification" for the numerous restrictions of freedom, which were so valiantly earned in 1989 !!!  ORBAN's Hungary is now defying, refusing, to adhere to the principles of the EU.  

Is there still anyone available in the EU (or in the EUROZONE)  to concentrate on this problem ?       

BRITISH HUMAN RIGHTS ACT NOW URGENT

In the year 2000, Tony Blair and Jack Straw were deliriously happy to sign  Britain up to the E U Human Rights Act.  This was arguably the biggest and most costly mistake of the then Socialist Government.

Since then British Courts of Justice have lost the right to interpret the Law of Britain in a British manner.  They are overruled by Judges in Brussels.  There is hardly a week when the punishment of a criminal is not modified or that an illegal immigrant is not given the right to stay in Britain because he has other  "rights" !!!  Who pays the cost ?  The British taxpayer, of course !!!

David Cameron knows all this fully well.  He has often spoken about a British Act of Human Rights.  Well, it is now that such an Act should be drafted.  

Now is the time because the EU is in a mess, the EURO is sick and all efforts are concentrated on the creation of the EUROZONE of which BRITAIN (and other countries for sure) will not be a part !!!  Furthermore, SARKOZY and MERKEL, each face a general election in the coming months. 

No one will, now, suddenly start worrying about immigration and BRITISH HUMAN RIGHTS during the next six months at least !!!  When they do, Britain must be ready !!!     

FRENCH PRESIDENTIALS: THE RACE FOR 500 "SPONSORS"

The first round of the French Presidential election in 2012 will take place on Sunday, 22 April 2012.  The two leading candidates will face each other in a run-off two weeks later on Sunday, 6 May 2012.

A candidate in the first round must obviously be a French national and must have obtained the signature of 500 elected people from at least 30 different departments in France or abroad.  There are potentially 45 000 elected people, including 36 000 Mayors.  No one can present more than one person in the election.

Although theoretically one could find 90 different Presidential candidates, this is far from what will happen.  To be sure they have enough valid sponsors, small candidates will collect many more than just 500 signatures.  Big party candidates will do the same thing, but with the object of stifling and blocking competition from smaller candidates !!!  Big parties will not help small candidates. 

The real problem is that the names of 500 "sponsors" of each candidate will be officially published !!!  This in fact means that the electors of small town mayors could discover that he has favoured a candidate who is not to their liking !!!  He could lose votes in his next election !!!   On top of this, if his home town is in a region which is now in the "opposition", it may get less regional subventions !!!   

This problem is well known in France, but the Constitution will not be changed before the coming election.     



  

RUSSIANS WANT HIM OUT !!! PUTIN WANTS TO STAY !!!

Its the same old story !!!  The world has seen the same thing in Russia repeatedly, and likewise in its satellite states.  Russian leaders want to stay in power for the the rest of their lives !!!

The Russian revolution and Lenin did away with royalty, but for the same reasons Russian leaders today want to remain in power forever. The right of comrades to vote democratically is sacrificed for more urgent reasons !!!  The reason given is to fight western interference inside Russia.  

Unless he changes, MEDVEDEV will forever be seen as the stooge.  PUTIN will become a Dictator like all those who have preceded him !!!      

BRITAIN'S HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSED !!! BUT WHO CARES ?

Not for the first time British newspapers report that an International Court of Justice has overruled the decision of a British Court of Justice. The current problem which has surfaced concerns immigrants from outside the EU who managed to get a foothold in Greece !!!

It is the EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE in Luxembourg which overruled the decision of the British High Court !!!  On previous occasions it has been the EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS on many occasions !!!

What are the aims of these so called  "COURTS OF JUSTICE" ?  To prove their worthwhile ?  To justify and conserve their existence ?  Who pays for their upkeep ? They just avoid the problem !!!

There are so many laws one needs a farmer and a plough to understand the law !!! Is there no one in the EU who could get a grip on this problem and thereby make his reputation ?

Obliging Britain to accept illegal immigrants is another example of indirect taxation !!!  In the end, who pays for illegal immigrants ?  Britain and its taxpayers !!! Judges do not address this cost problem.

Finally, the big question !!!  Should countries not have the right to nominate a judge on the panel of judges when it is clear that a foreseeable judgement could interfere with national laws ?