Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Oh, They Do Intend To Steal From You

Recommended Posts

http://market-ticker.org/archives/2533-Oh,-They-DO-Intend-To-Steal-From-You.html

And what's better, now the lapdogs of Wall Street are immune from FOIA requests!

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."

Mr. President, you're a lying sack of crap.

Nor is this theoretical either. Fox News has already had an FOIA denied:

The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network.

Nice.

Oh, by the way, this would mean that a Madoff or Stanford "thing" would leave the SEC immune from FOIA requests by the Press (including the "mainstream" along with media folks like myself) to discover whether they had effective and early notice that they intentionally ignored.

Isn't that convenient, given that they did exactly that with Madoff and, it can be argued, Stanford as well?

Indeed, the SEC, The Fed, and Treasury have all tried to refuse compliance with FOIA requests into the backstories of the financial meltdown.

FOIA requests that could (and in some cases have, when they were forced to be complied with via lawsuits) reveal double-dealing, "sweetheart" treatment, and even willful blindness that, in many people's opinion (including mine) reaches the level of intentional collusion that, in a private context, would lead to civil and/or criminal racketeering charges.

To President Obama and CONgress for sticking this in FinReg (and yeah, I missed it, even though I read the entire damn thing):

Excellent news.

I mean who really needs transparency, it's not like the free market depends on it for accurate functioning and pricing.

If you can't get facts rumour is king and the fear will be something is being hidden.

The feudal system goes from strength to strength, they are now wanting to hide what's happening from public because we are too stupid to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://market-ticker.org/archives/2533-Oh,-They-DO-Intend-To-Steal-From-You.html

Excellent news.

I mean who really needs transparency, it's not like the free market depends on it for accurate functioning and pricing.

If you can't get facts rumour is king and the fear will be something is being hidden.

The feudal system goes from strength to strength, they are now wanting to hide what's happening from public because we are too stupid to know.

Hey I have put in numerous FOI request to explore the QinetiQ sale details...all have been refused on "Commercially Sensative" grounds!

So the formerly tax payer funded "Defence Research Agency" was sold off at a fraction of it's real value and I can't I get info on it, even if it affects the public good.

"Thank you for your enquiry dated 29 January 2008. This was passed to Defence Estates (DE), the Ministry of Defence (MOD) organisation responsible for managing the defence estate and has been dealt with as a request for information under the freedom of information (FOI) Act 2000

You asked about the sale price of the Pyestock site when it was transferred to QinetiQ. I am enclosing an extract from the Hansard (13 January 2003) which explained that the value of individual sites would not be put into the public domain. It therefore follows that the sale price information you seek is likely to fall within the scope of a qualified exemption under the FOI Act. The relevant exemption is s43 - Commercial Interests. This provides that information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interest of any person (including public authority holding it).

The exemption is subject to the balance of public interest. By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to consider the balance of public interest, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances......

(THIS SITE WILL NOW BE THE BIGGEST WAREHOUSE 24/7 DISTRIBUTION DEPOT IN THE S/E..Was hugely Opposed by local people and sits at the end of of a very long runway.

Yet even after the council rejected planning applications the fooker is still going ahead and being built! HOW HOW HOW can this formerly publicly owned land, taken by the MOD....Funded to hell and back...and sold off to the private sector for an undisclosed sum ............ NOT COVERED BY THE FOI?

FYI FARNBOROUGH airport that covers 556 Acres was sold for a cool £ONE Million...to the TAG group... The same price as 4x3bed semis in the area at the time!

Edited by Yoss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Hey I have put in numerous FOI request to explore the QinetiQ sale details...all have been refused on "Commercially Sensative" grounds!<br /><br />So the formerly tax payer funded "Defence Research Agency" was sold off at a fraction of it's real value and I can't I get info on it, even if it affects the public good.<br /><br /><i>"Thank you for your enquiry dated 29 January 2008. This was passed to Defence Estates (DE), the Ministry of Defence (MOD) organisation responsible for managing the defence estate and has been dealt with as a request for information under the freedom of information (FOI) Act 2000<br /><br />You asked about the sale price of the Pyestock site when it was transferred to QinetiQ. I am enclosing an extract from the Hansard (13 January 2003) which explained that the value of individual sites would not be put into the public domain. It therefore follows that the sale price information you seek is likely to fall within the scope of a qualified exemption under the FOI Act. The relevant exemption is s43 - Commercial Interests. This provides that information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interest of any person (including public authority holding it).<br /><br />The exemption is subject to the balance of public interest. By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to consider the balance of public interest, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances......</i> <br /><br /> (THIS SITE WILL NOW BE THE BIGGEST WAREHOUSE 24/7 DISTRIBUTION DEPOT IN THE S/E..Was hugely Opposed by local people and sits at the end of of a very long runway.<br /><br />Yet even after the council rejected planning applications the fooker is still going ahead and being built! HOW HOW HOW can this formerly publicly owned land, taken by the MOD....Funded to hell and back...and sold off to the private sector for an undisclosed sum ............ NOT COVERED BY THE FOI?<br /><br /><br />FYI FARNBOROUGH airport that covers 556 Acres was sold for a cool £ONE Million...to the TAG group... The same price as 4x3bed semis in the area at the time!<br />
<br /><br /><br />

Makes you wonder what 'they' are putting in place in the UK! CIA Director, RFID etc

Ex–Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet served as an independent non-executive director to QinetiQ's Board between October 2006 and January 2008

In January 2007, the Company bought Analex, a U.S. corporation providing high technology professional services and solutions, principally to the United States Government and its agencies.

Analex originally incorporated in 1964 under the name Biorad which then evolved into

Hadron, Inc.,

a U.S. government systems consulting firm chaired by Earl Brian, a controversial, often shady, businessman who eventually became the centre of focus in a Ronald Reagan-era, software piracy case: Inslaw Inc. v. United States Government.

In February 2007 the acquisition of ITS Corporation, a provider of IT services to the US government and its agencies, was announced. The disposal of Aerospace Filtration Systems (formerly part of Westar) was announced at the same time. In June, QinetiQ Group plc announced that its U.S. subsidiary Apogen Technologies Inc. had completed the acquisition of 3H Technology LLC, a specialist IT company with US government and commercial clients.

In October, the company completed the acquisition of Boldon James Holdings Limited, a UK-based provider of software solutions for high end secure messaging, primarily for military, government and security customers worldwide.

In March 2007 QinetiQ spun off a new company, Omni-ID, Ltd., for the purpose of commercializing passive UHF Radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I have put in numerous FOI request to explore the QinetiQ sale details...all have been refused on "Commercially Sensative" grounds!

So the formerly tax payer funded "Defence Research Agency" was sold off at a fraction of it's real value and I can't I get info on it, even if it affects the public good.

"Thank you for your enquiry dated 29 January 2008. This was passed to Defence Estates (DE), the Ministry of Defence (MOD) organisation responsible for managing the defence estate and has been dealt with as a request for information under the freedom of information (FOI) Act 2000

You asked about the sale price of the Pyestock site when it was transferred to QinetiQ. I am enclosing an extract from the Hansard (13 January 2003) which explained that the value of individual sites would not be put into the public domain. It therefore follows that the sale price information you seek is likely to fall within the scope of a qualified exemption under the FOI Act. The relevant exemption is s43 - Commercial Interests. This provides that information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interest of any person (including public authority holding it).

The exemption is subject to the balance of public interest. By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to consider the balance of public interest, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances......

(THIS SITE WILL NOW BE THE BIGGEST WAREHOUSE 24/7 DISTRIBUTION DEPOT IN THE S/E..Was hugely Opposed by local people and sits at the end of of a very long runway.

Yet even after the council rejected planning applications the fooker is still going ahead and being built! HOW HOW HOW can this formerly publicly owned land, taken by the MOD....Funded to hell and back...and sold off to the private sector for an undisclosed sum ............ NOT COVERED BY THE FOI?FYI FARNBOROUGH airport that covers 556 Acres was sold for a cool £ONE Million...to the TAG group... The same price as 4x3bed semis in the area at the time!

I searched for pyestock after reading a recent thread on it. Only 2 came up. I'd love to go and see this place before it's bulldozed (if not already) bloody outrage if it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/nov/23/uk.Whitehall

MPs and trade unions will today condemn the Ministry of Defence for allowing 10 senior civil servants to make "mind boggling" profits from the flotation of its research arm, QinetiQ.The full scale of payouts is revealed by the National Audit Office (NAO) in a report which shows that shares owned by the civil servants rose in value by 20,000% on the day they went on the stockmarket. Another 245 senior managers made 14,400% profits on their shares. Ordinary workers received free share options worth £80 on the day.

The scale of largesse revealed in the report shows the top 10 people between them invested £540,000 of their own money in the company and saw this rise to £107.45m on the day Qinetiq was floated last year. Sir John Chisholm, who is non-executive chairman, saw his investment of £130,000 rise to £25.97m; Graham Love, chief executive, saw a £110,000 investment rise to £21.35m; Hal Kruth, group commercial manager saw a £70,000 investment rise to £13.88m; and Brenda Jones, marketing director, saw a £60,000 investment rise to £11.18m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.