Scandal

XR stage die-in at Barclays Bank

Barclays.png

The Extinction Rebellion (XR) loonies need to be arrested and charged for willful business disruption to a Nottingham branch of Barclays Bank. While XR has claimed no business was affected and no property destroyed their supporters have no place being inside. It is like sitting in a popular restaurant and not ordering. It is an inconvenience. If CM was a bank, there would seem to be a huge amount of business to be done with legitimate businesses by standing up to these petulant fools.

Once again they prove that behaving like children is the hallmark of the movement. CM sincerely hope their grandchildren see these pictures and question their grandparents’ actions as deeply embarrassing. Do the XR crew honestly believe rational debate can take place when its followers behave like lemmings?

The group should be sent the bill for the wasted police resources and unnecessary court costs created by their civil disobedience.

Man of Steal tripped up by his own kryptonite

The pin-up boy of politics, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, has been found guilty by the Conflict of Interest & Ethics Commissioner (COIEC) of being involved with interfering in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal. Only 70 days to go before Canadian peoplekind can sack him at the election because he is not looking to resign.

What a shame this darling of the left has fallen foul of breaching the ethics code, not once but twice. One hopes Canadians would have wanted him to prioritize his own ethics before lecturing them on feminism, climate change, cutting $10m cheques to convicted terrorists and not having enough money to support veterans.

The COIEC wrote in his summary,

The first step in my analysis was to determine whether Mr. Trudeau sought to influence the decision of the Attorney General as to whether she should intervene in a criminal prosecution involving SNC-Lavalin following the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The evidence showed there were many ways in which Mr. Trudeau, either directly or through the actions of those under his direction, sought to influence the Attorney General.

Having reviewed several possible means of intervening in the matter, Ms. Wilson-Raybould made it known in September that she would not intervene in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision.

Mr. Trudeau met with Ms. Wilson-Raybould on September 17, 2018, at which time she reiterated her decision to not intervene in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to not invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into a remediation agreement. She also expressed to Mr. Trudeau her concern of inappropriate attempts to interfere politically with the Attorney General in a criminal matter. Following this meeting, senior officials under the direction of Mr. Trudeau continued to engage both with SNC-Lavalin’s legal counsel and, separately, with Ms. Wilson-Raybould and her ministerial staff to influence her decision, even after SNC-Lavalin had filed an application for a judicial review of theDirector of Public Prosecutions’ decision. These attempts also included encouraging her to re-examine the possibility of obtaining external advice from “someone like” a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Unbeknownst to the Attorney General at that time, legal opinions from two former Supreme Court justices, retained by SNC-Lavalin, had been reviewed by the Prime Minister’s Office and other ministerial offices. Meanwhile, both SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister’s Office had approached the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to participate in the matter. The final attempt to influence Ms. Wilson-Raybould occurred during a conversation with the former Clerk of the Privy Council on December 19, 2018, as an appeal, on behalf of Mr. Trudeau, to impress upon her that a solution was needed to prevent the economic consequences of SNC-Lavalin not entering into negotiations for a remediation agreement.

Simply seeking to influence the decision of another person is insufficient for there to be a contravention of section 9. The second step of the analysis was to determine whether Mr. Trudeau, through his actions and those of his staff, sought to improperly further the interests of SNC-Lavalin.

The evidence showed that SNC-Lavalin had significant financial interests in deferring prosecution. These interests would likely have been furthered had Mr. Trudeau successfully influenced the Attorney General to intervene in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision. The actions that sought to further these interests were improper since they were contrary to the Shawcross doctrine and the principles of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law.

For these reasons, I found that Mr. Trudeau used his position of authority over Ms. Wilson-Raybould to seek to influence, both directly and indirectly, her decision on whether she should overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into negotiations towards a remediation agreement.

Therefore, I find that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 9 of the Act.”

Trudeau had a hard task to out do his father for political incompetence. Yet he has exceeded admirably. From wearing Indian garb on a state visit to prosecuting the case on a plastics ban with water box bottle things and waving to empty airfields or speaking at the UNGA to a scattering if disinterested people on their mobile phones.

CM still wishes Rona Ambrose was Leader of the Conservatives but it looks as though Andrew Scheer shouldn’t have too much trouble becoming the next PM.

Beasts at the border?

A lot of negative noise has been made about the actions of the Customs & Border Protection (CBP) employees in the US. Notably, the arrest statistics across the entire staff of 59,178 totalled 254 people. Only 2 people were arrested for sexual misconduct. Two-thirds of the crimes that led to the arrest of CBP staff were alcohol or DV related. The Annual Report published in 2018 notes that the trend fell marginally.

The CBP Standards of Conduct state that in order to fulfill its mission, CBP and its employees must sustain the trust and confidence of the public they serve. As such, any violation of law by a CBP employee is inconsistent with and contrary to the Agency’s law enforcement mission. CBP’s Standards of Conduct specify that certain conduct, on and off-duty, may subject an employee to disciplinary action. These standards serve as notice to all CBP employees of the Agency’s expectations for employee conduct wherever and whenever they are.

Rep Jerry Nadler is calling for CBP officials to face ‘child abuse’ sanctions. Substantiated ‘crimes involving children leading to arrest numbered only 6. Six too many one might say but hardly a sign of widespread child abuse. 

We can see the total number of formal disciplinary warnings and sanctions against staff as follows over the past 3 years.

CBP.png

Note that under Trump, an 18% increase in drug testing of CBP employees (13% of the total were tested in 2017) led to a fall in positive responses to narcotics in 2017 over 2016.

A total of 12 people, or 0.02% of CBP staff, tested positive in 2017 to illicit substances.

Looking at allegations made against CBP staff, 3,806 of the 7,239 claims made were dismissed as unsubstantiated in 2017. This is down from 3,828 out of 7,740 in 2016. There were 8,253 claims in 2015. in 2017, 1,279 employees required counselling. 1,074 received written warnings. So the idea that CBP employees are merely Nazis bullying people with no consequences, it couldn’t be further from the truth. Statistically, the quarterly reported nature of the data suggest very little seasonality with respect to punishment – i.e. it is consistent.

Breaking it down by department within the CBP, 4% of the 20,954 US Border Patrol (USBP) staff were disciplined, 3% of the 29,321 Office of Field Operations (OFO) employees were cracked over the knuckles. These represented 90% of all disciplinary actions in CBP.

The highest number of CBP OFO sanctions in 2017 vs 2016 caused in the Laredo Field Office (441 -> 378), followed by the San Diego Field Office (398->408) and Tucson Field Office (328 -> 200). These figures were out of a total of 3,129 sanctions issued.

The highest number of CBP USBP sanctions in 2017 vs 2016 were caused in the Tucson Sector (809->701), followed by the Rio Grande Sector (704->568) and the El Paso Sector (317->332). These figures were out of a total of 3,168 sanctions issued.

Each year, CBP receives and reviews hundreds of allegations pertaining to use of force incidents. Authorized employees may use objectively reasonable force only when it is necessary to carry out their law enforcement duties. When these cases involve excessive force or civil rights abuse allegations, and prosecution is declined by the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the local prosecutor, the matter is then subject to an administrative investigation to determine if an employee’s actions, although not unlawful, violated Agency policy or procedure.

In FY 2015, CBP implemented a new process for reporting, tracking, and investigating use of force incidents. Under this new process, use of force cases are evaluated to determine whether the amount or type of force used was excessive or outside of Agency policy. CBP’s National Use of Force Review Board (NUFRB) reviews all lethal use of force incidents, including the use of firearms and uses of force that result in serious injury or death. The Local Use of Force Review Board reviews all less than lethal use of force incidents not addressed by the NUFRB. If there is a determination that an employee’s use of force was outside of Agency policy, the case returns to HRM for potential disciplinary action.

The remaining cases involving alleged use of force that are not handled through the NUFRB or Local Use of Force Review Boards, including allegations of excessive force, are referred to OPR or component management for review and consideration of disciplinary action.

In conclusion, CBP noted,

All CBP employees are guided by these principles of the public trust both on and off-duty. Those who breach it are held accountable for their actions.

Although the number of CBP employees arrested for misconduct on or off-duty declined for the second year in a row, the number of employees arrested continues to be a concern. CBP is addressing employee arrests through its ongoing efforts promoting education and resilience services to employees and their families, reducing the use of administrative leave or indefinite suspension when employees are subject to a criminal proceeding, and by ensuring appropriate discipline is applied.

CBP will continue to increase its transparency efforts with annual discipline overviews, publication of National Use of Force Board results, and through public engagement on our policies and operations. Finally, CBP’s internal complaints and discipline systems will remain focused on systemic improvements to reduce case investigation and administrative processing timelines and increase consistency in handling misconduct allegations and more timely arrive at discipline case decisions.”

Judge for yourself. Things are not exactly rosy, but the idea that border forces are unhinged and unaccounted is simply unfounded. To that end, steps taken to improve the situation are not limited to the following:

Improving Use of Force instruction for law enforcement personnel by extending basic training of new recruits to include a 35% increase in less lethal and 58% increase in use of force judgement/firearms related training; Adding mandatory live and computer-assisted scenario based Use of Force training for all.

Continuing release of information to the public immediately following use of force incidents and publishing monthly use of force statistics on CBP.gov

Implementing CBP’s Policy on Zero Tolerance of Sexual Abuse and Assault

We await the FY2018 figures due shortly to see whether the Trump administration has added a layer of Nazi stormtrooper to the data. CM guesses the statistics will prove otherwise.

Drinking out of toilets?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed that those in border detention centres were forced to drink from toilets. Technically speaking the water fountains are attached to the toilet. The detention facilities have such combined units for space saving reasons. This is a picture from the Department of Justice in 2015.

As can be seen by the constant court filings against inhumane conditions, it is clear these complaints have been made since Obama’s time in office.

Note this from June 8th, 2015:

Immigrant rights groups have filed a class-action lawsuit challenging detention conditions in CBP (Customs and Border Protection) detention facilities. The complaint alleges that Tucson Sector Border Patrol holds men, women, and children in freezing, overcrowded, and filthy cells for days at a time in violation of the U.S. Constitution and CBP’s own policies. Detained individuals are stripped of outer layers of clothing and forced to suffer in brutally cold temperatures; deprived of beds, bedding, and sleep; denied adequate food, water, medicine and medical care, and basic sanitation and hygiene items such as soap, sufficient toilet paper, sanitary napkins, diapers, and showers; and held virtually incommunicado in these conditions for days.”

Why do politicians insist on hyperventilating when the reality soon gets discovered?

High Priest of Rugby Australia hits the nail on the head

If Rugby Australia (RA) Chairman Cameron Clyne had a decent product he wouldn’t need to worry about sponsors. Sponsors want brand exposure. That requires packed crowds following the Wallabies.

Some quick facts since 2014 vs 2018.

-Wallabies team costs (coach, support etc) +70% ($9.97m)

-Match day revenue -42.1% ($20.17m)

-Sponsorships -11.5% ($28.23m)

-Player contracts +3.2% ($16.79m)

– Licensing revenue -12.9% ($1.67m)

– RA has $18m in cash and equivalents as at 2019.

– RA made $5.87m net profit in 2018 on $119m of revenue but is expected to post a loss in 2019.

The SMH points to the very problems that RA has created for itself. To take the notion that “no” sponsors would want to be associated had they done nothing is absolute garbage. The Australian Christian Lobby might fill the Qantas void…

Does Clyne honestly believe that LGBT staff within RA may have sued it for not creating a safe and respectful environment had Folau not been shot? What a joke. If it is that easy to get a payout, CM would identify as such to ride that gravy train. How weak is the board to fold to this dross?

Did RA do anything when Pocock was arrested for chaining himself to an excavator for 10 hours at the Maules Creek mine? He was charged with “trespass, remaining on enclosed land without lawful excuse and hindering the working of mining equipment.” Raelene Castle wasn’t CEO at the time but Cameron Clyne, Paul McLean and Ann Sherry were and still are board members. Where is the balance in sanctions handed out? Wasn’t there a risk the climate skeptics inside RA might sue for the lack of a respectful environment?

Clyne also mentioned there was a risk of state and federal funding cuts if this wasn’t dealt with. In 2018, these grants totaled $3.5m out of total revenues of $119m. Less than 3%.

Once again if RA was run for the fans it would stand a far higher chance of not needing to fear its own shadow.

Alinta Energy sponsors Cricket Australia post the cheating scandal with the cheats still representing their country. Is cheating any better or worse than tweeting passages paraphrasing the Bible? The point is sponsors took advantage.

Here’s a suggestion. Put Folau back, sack Cheika based solely on (lack of) performance, drop Hooper, Foley and all the other publicly woke players to the bench, replace the board, CEO and chairman, call Qantas’ bluff and watch the fans flood back. A sponsor that is presented with an opportunity to back the team at its nadir will reap the benefits like Alinta.

How dare you stand by your man

If CM had a dime every time another person or corporate talked about “diversity and inclusion” he’d be a millionaire. That one has to claim the bleeding obvious is nothing more than sanctimonious virtue signaling. It is nauseating. It’s like asserting one stands against Nazis. Really? How woke!

To have people question Israel Folau’s wife supporting her husband beggars belief. What does one expect? That she might publicly shame him on her Twitter account? Is anyone surprised she retweeted his GoFundMe appeal? Perhaps former Aussie netballer Liz Ellis can advise Maria Folau in the art of throwing her beloved under the bus.

She tweeted, “How about this: There is no room for homophobia in our game. Anyone who is seen to support or endorse homophobia is not welcome. As much as I love watching @MariaFolau play netball I do not want my sport endorsing the views of her husband.”

Liz, should Netball NZ launch a witch-hunt on Maria? Shall we make an example of her? Perhaps ask Jacinda Ardern’s judiciary to sink its newly sharpened fangs into Maria for retweeting Izzy’s ‘hatred’ and incarcerate her? Perhaps ask Twitter to terminate his account?

ANZ, sponsor of the domestic netball premiership, unsurprisingly came out with a politically correct response. Does ANZ have to prove to the 0.1% of activists who claim faux outrage that it isn’t homophobic? Why not appeal to the 0.000001% of fornicators, adulterers and drunks who might have been upset by Folau? It is amazing to think these institutions hire so many staff to floss the chrome fixtures in the executive bathroom.

Corporations really need to grow a pair. “Diversity and inclusion” are overused more in corporate virtue signaling than Casanova serenading “I love only you” on Valentine’s Day.

If ANZ had a look at the bank account balances of the activists that they fear so much they would soon learn they could easily afford to lose their business.

Quit the moral preening. You aren’t fooling anyone.

Constructive dismissal?

CM’s view on the incompetence of Rugby Australia (RA) is well documented and reconfirmed by Alan Jones in The Australian today. It appears that Israel Folau looks more like a sacrifice to the altar of the sponsor god, Qantas.

Sponsorship money is important to sports teams but it should never get to a point where the sponsored has to make unconscionable decisions to acquiesce their paymasters. It is unethical.

CM has long held issues over Qantas’ flagrant use of shareholder capital to sponsor the CEO’s activism. It is terrible governance.

Remember the acceptance rings ahead of the same sex marriage debate that Qantas pushed so hard on us? The idea was to distribute these acceptance rings (not fully closed) to customers, clients and travellers.

CM supposed if someone were to politely decline to wear one they risked being be branded homophobic, bigoted and summarily ostracized for expressing such views. It might be that they actually support gay marriage but do not wish to express it openly. That is nothing more than a conscious choice, not categorical staunch opposition. Perhaps failure to wear the ring could cause their career takes a turn for the worse all because they don’t comply with group expression i.e. corporate slavery. The team leader who passes them over because they incorrectly assume the employee is a dissenter. That is palpable workplace bullying encouraged by a woke CEO.

What Jones points out is that the ‘wallaby court’ had already decided the outcome before a word was uttered in defence. It appears it was a ‘hearing’ conducted with the deaf.

RA CEO Raelene Castle apparently told Vanessa Hudson, chief customer officer at Qantas,

I updated her on the situation a day after the post and told her that, confidentially, Rugby AU would be working towards a process to terminate Mr Folau’s contract and that Ms Hudson can share that position with Qantas chief executive Mr Alan Joyce. Ms Hudson texted me later that day saying that she had only shared the update with Mr Joyce and he was appreciative of the transparency and he said that a speedy resolution by Rugby AU was paramount.”

This says a lot about Qantas. If it wants to exert control over RA it should acquire it and manage it as a subsidiary.

Yet where was the pushback by RA? It flaked. If it understood the dwindling fan numbers meant it wasn’t connecting to revenue, it might have thought defending Folau might have been its greatest coup and that many non virtue signaling corporates could replace Qantas’ sponsorship.

The culture of RA is self evident. It is not about rugby anymore but a platform for identity politics.No wonder fans are deserting it. CM discusses dwindling fan numbers yesterday, something Jones alluded to. Put simply, the product stinks and that rot permeates from the top. Fans aren’t stupid.

Coach Michael Cheika’s abysmal win/loss record is tolerated because he tows the line of the C-level cabal. So do some of the players who threatened to boycott the team if Folau was allowed to keep playing.What a joke! These virtue signaling players if given the choice to stand by their beliefs or keep their lucrative contracts would choose the latter every time. They sounded just like those Hollywoodcelebrities that threatened to leave America if Trump won the presidency.Hypocrites.

However it only reinforces the reality of the culture within the RA that encourages this type of numb skulled response to pander to the top. If these players wanted to think about faith in context of not selling out core beliefs they could learn muchfrom Israel Folau.

It increasingly looks like the high level breach has been committed by the board in cahoots with Qantas.

As CM mentioned yesterday, perhaps receivership is the best outcome for RA. That way the apparatchiks get cleared out and replaced by people that connect with fans who ultimately pay the keep the lights on at HQ. It isn’t that hard to fix RA’s problems but it will be impossible with a leadership team which seems to support constructive dismissal at the behest of corporates that champion activism rather than principle. Clearly Qantas is the mean “spirit of Australia”

Get woke, go broke.