Hypocritical Bigots.
Every now and again I find if you decide to write about a subject and that very subject immediately rears its ugly head and becomes a major part of the news. How many times do we say to a friend, “We were just talking about that!” Or you come across a word you have never heard of before and it appears in the very next book you read?
Last week I wrote about understatement and more hypocrisy. What happens this week? The headlines on the British news channels and newspapers are just about that. The hypocrisy within the politically correct (PC) inclusivity brigade seems to somehow embed themselves into corporate and media structures with a self-imposed mandate to ignore the individual's rights to his personal views. That was the withdrawal of banking facilities to Nigel Farage. Nigel is not the most endearing character to say the least, often making enemies where there are none and seeking controversy perhaps more for self-publicity than for the actual cause he is promoting. Despite this Nigel is a larger-than-life streetfighter, and ex-politician albeit lately a television news presenter within the fast-growing popular news channel, GB News.
You would think that any business would have considered the dangers in taking action against such a personality, especially using a self-imposed standard, not a legal requirement, for its clients under what they term their inclusivity culture. That action in its nature challenges what should be regarded as personal freedoms that are enshrined in the British constitution. Not so the wealth committee at the said bank.
“From being risk-mitigators in taking this action, they became risk-takers. There lies the problem, corporate committees are not policemen, they are advisors. Corporate bureaucrats are always keen to overstep their boundaries of responsibility when it suits them and ignore them when it does not.” - Peter McSporran
They, in their political correctness, decided that Farage’s right-leaning politics, his support for Brexit, coupled with his bad language and a number of other unsubstantiated accusations led them to believe that having him as a customer was a reputational risk. They proceeded to cancel not only his account but also refused to renew his mortgage. In fact, by simply not renewing his mortgage, they deemed his account had become unviable therefore reason to close it. Fools yes, but more importantly hypocritical fools. When he challenged them over their reasons for the action they said it was because he did not have enough funds to hold an account with their prestigious bank, rather than their perceived reputational risk. He disputed this saying this was not the case. Many of us thinking the bank would not lie about such an important issue and believed the bank especially pertaining to such a vocal public figure. Farage, being true to character, was unlikely to remain silent and sure enough, by using his citizens' rights, obtained all the documentation pertaining to the suspension of his account clearly showing he had been right in his assumption. The bank had lied about the reason for its action. This is when many of us decided the action was subjective and not technical. Not even brave enough to voice their own reasoning publicly. Low and behold it was not a question of funds but a question of perceived reputational risk and they had hypocritically tried to cover up their action with lies.
“So what we have here is discrimination masked as ‘inclusivity’, bigotry dressed up as tolerance.”- This week's Spectator magazine
They have subsequently apologised but have not reinstated his account. I presume in reading wealth committee, a new name to me, it means credit committee with the document, forty pages no less, prepared by another group I presume the risk committee.
“I have often wondered how the corporate world ever makes money with overloaded administration to service bureaucratic committees and procedures bolstered by studies with supporting documentation. Be it oil or food or even banking, just pass it on to the customer. Hospitals are no different but here service is reduced to enable maintenance of administration staff.” - Peter McSporran
Unfortunately, I have been aware over recent years, especially while being a conduit between the funders and the lenders to agricultural projects in Africa, many artificial barriers are being created which make it especially hard to support in Africa even well-planned and viable businesses. Those that provide the funds or the lender may withhold access because of these barriers which may only be perceptions. Hence, the preference of international grant providers and NGO funders to supply a one-off program under the guise of humanitarian projects rather than businesses as these significantly reduce the risk of legacy reputation. Easy things under this modus operandi are things like supplying free mosquito nets, drilling boreholes and providing health equipment that benefit the community which is not necessarily sustainable in job creation and generating wealth.
“Reputation is a futurist notion which is built on your past actions. Of course, future actions can turn this concept on its head. Therefore release easy, one-off humanitarian funds, rather than create a business with all the risks attached.” - Peter McSporran
After all, we may know the promoter's history but it cannot be said what he may do in the future. In funding circles the holder of the funds is the judge and jury, you may be unaware of the reason for withholding which may in fact have been instigated due to a casual bar room or hotel foyer remark. Often one has to resist political pressure, not always successfully despite your best efforts. Generally, these always end in failure.
One of the first barriers to raise its ugly head under the guise of doing the ‘bigger good’ for the world was the environmental card. There is no doubt in the past even those countries that were demanding very high standards were themselves the very worst polluters and destroyers of our forests, meadows and waterways. Many of the major industrial countries are still actively polluting the world while asking others in the developing world to do better. No matter what, there will have to be reviews and reports before money is released, more often than not by international expensive crony organisations rather than by local dedicated environmentalists who are much more aware of local environmental and cultural issues. Meanwhile, at home, these very nations are only too happy to buy many of their manufactured, agricultural and energy requirements from those that do not adhere to the very rules imposed on borrowers or sponsors in Africa. Sure they may not fund those industries but as sure as s*** they will buy the goods and energy produced. Repeatedly we often hear of the human disasters in the workhouses of the Far East, do we do anything about it? No, the purchaser just changes suppliers but not the source country. After all, most are guilty of the same malpractices and the rule-abiding alternates would reduce profit margins.
The biggest part of the hypocrisy is in dealing with the environment. In Africa, these very people try to apply first-world standards which they themselves have not adhered to. They expect the emerging economies to do better than them, at their own expense. Further to help mitigate against their own environmental misnomers and social issues at home they call on their governments for soft funding which may be attached to many of their loans or in the form of direct government grants while resisting soft loans to the developing world for this very purpose, as it is considered not commercial to do so. Hypocrites, yes.
One of the other challenges I found was that if an agricultural project was identified as unoccupied, derelict private or state land once the local populace saw your activity they would immediately move on to the land knowing full well that under the World Bank and IFC rules, which most investors and lenders adhere to, they will be compensated in the event of the proposer raising the funding. That is full compensation along with an agreement on voluntary movement. I find it amazing that everyone expects the borrower or benefactor of the funds to pay for this and not who has to build this cost of adherence and consultation requirements into their business model. These costs can be massive, putting paid to the viability of the proposed project to the detriment of employment and production within the area. The windfall to the illegal settlers, you're not allowed to use the word squatter, is soon gobbled up by the politicians and local bureaucrats claiming their dues as the ones that brought them the windfall. A sustainable viable project or business would be better for everyone. Not so if reputation is at risk.
So following social and environmental issues, the next subject to raise its ugly head was reputational risk. The road to success for business in Africa is not as subtle or discreet as the daggers behind closed doors in the boardrooms of London or Paris. A criminal record is easily obtained in Africa. Just to survive, or even by being a member or affiliated to the opposition party can be enough. Charges can easily be trumped up by anyone with more power or cash than you. Often to obtain a business licence or building rights requires a deed or action outside normal business practice. It is a hard fact, one may deny it, just as we are happy to ignore the cultural issues when it suits us in the interpretation of the law. It was standard practice not to lend or invest to politically connected people be they the ruling party or the opposition. Imagine applying those rules in the City of London?
This brings us back to the banking hypocrites. If the banks can block you from rightfully holding an account because of your views, be it your view on politics, gender or affiliations it will mark the end of personal freedom and democracy. It will not stop with the banks, lenders or investors. We all know it is already in the workplace, the larger the corporation the worse it is. The recent Farage fiasco is only one of the many over the past few years when personalities and business organisations have been deprived of their rights to work as it does not fit in with their perception of being PC.
“What is known as the new all-inclusiveness, is a disguise for the new and much more vicious exclusivity.” - Peter McSporran
Surgeon Chat.
As I was sitting opposite the surgeon this week discussing the treatment for my latest round of cancer I thought to myself what if he did not like the way I spoke, my politics or even the fact that I was born in Scotland and he decided I was too much of a reputational risk to treat. After all, I do not speak Portuguese and my language is not the best. Would that be any different to what the bank did to Farage? At universities it is already happening, what happens if it encroaches into schools? Maybe it's because you don't accept your classmate identifying as a cat. Why not hospitals or public services? I personally do not think it is stretching the imagination too far. We lost our farms despite being citizens because we were white or if you were black because of your political affiliations. The West, if it is not careful, even if only naively, will see a rising scourge and witness similar actions within their own society.
I just previously mentioned my surgeon who phoned me last Thursday asking me to come in on Monday for a chat about the proposed treatment of my recurring prostate cancer. I asked the surgeon if I could attend on another day as I was planning to go fishing for BFT so he very kindly changed the appointment to Wednesday. He obviously doesn't discriminate against fishermen. Could you do that in the UK? By the way, it is the surgeon that calls you personally on the telephone, not the nurse or receptionist. A year ago we had booked a trip to go marlin fishing in the Algarve, but that had to be cancelled due to bad weather. Rather than being refunded, we had requested a new date for this following year but for BFT as the target species rather than marlin. Marlin we had caught, after many years trying, in Mozambique.
Sure enough, I saw my surgeon on Wednesday after an exciting Bluefin Tuna (BFT) fishing trip. He went into great detail on why I'm going to have surgery as opposed to radiation mainly due to the complication of some of the medicines I take following my stomach cancer. Both radiation and surgery are not as easy after brachytherapy but he felt there was less chance of complications, especially the danger of internal bleeding at a later date with surgery. So I have consented to the surgery and now awaiting a date for this. I am on the theatre list, not jumping the queue as he thinks time is not critical yet.
Bluefin Tuna (BFT)
Last year my friend John Tidey, Rozanne and I went BFT fishing in the Algarve, getting only one take for a short while the whole day. However, on that trip, the sight of these magnificent giant fish frolicking in the water whetted our appetite for more. Unfortunately, just days before the due date, our charterer informed us he had double booked. Perhaps fortunately as the boat and crew we went out with this year was an improvement on the original one on offer. On the way out of Olhão we encountered dolphins and more surprisingly a hammerhead shark, which quite happily slowly swam alongside us for a few minutes. We saw a lot of fish activity and once again to our surprise a turtle. We were in the Algarve, not Mozambique.
As John Tidey could not come with us due to family commitments our local restaurateur João Alves, kindly sponsored by John, took his place. We had only been fishing for a short while, thirty minutes when we had a take. This fish after a run pulled the hook to our disappointment. Less than thirty minutes later we had two on luckily heading in opposite directions. Rozanne on the chair and João standing with the rod embedded in the rod holder on the gunnel. I refused the rod as I was not feeling strong enough to take the rod in light of witnessing the first strike. Disappointment yes, but better safe than sorry. After thirty minutes of moaning, groaning and squealing from Rozanne in the chair, due to muscle pain, Rozanne’s bus threw the hook. Aargh. João was still on as he was for a further two hours. It looks a lot easier on Wicked Tuna until you take note of the timer at the bottom of the screen on that program. What a fight. What speed. What strength. Perhaps not as visually exciting or as fast as a marlin but there is no doubt that pound-for-pound the BFT seemed much stronger, especially over the extended period. I subsequently checked this and all agreed that the marlin is much more exciting visually but the tuna’s strength is greater and it endures the fight longer. On its runs, when not down deep where it was most of the time, it would put up a magnificent bow wave that you could not imagine a living fish creating at such speed. After three hours, the fish became stationary down at about eighty-seven metres. After spending another hour getting it up from the bottom we found it had wrapped around a cable on the sea bed and drowned. This had probably occurred when it started its death circles directly below the boat.
You are not allowed to take BFT home in Portugal, it is accepted practice to catch and release although commercial charters are allowed up to five hundred kilograms of fish per annum. This licence goes with the boat not the captain and as our captain, also named João, had recently changed boats, we had not got a licence to harvest the fish. Luckily, there was a boat close by that could take the fish using its licence. We guessed it was close to three hundred kilograms. We measured it as we could not lift it into the boat and found it was exactly one hundred inches (2.5m) long. If the other boat had no licence we would have had to let it go for the sharks and crabs to eat. That is the rule, even if the fish is dead with no valid licence, you must dump it. No exception in the bureaucratic world, just like when fishermen in the North Sea catch the wrong species they have to dump them back into the ocean. That is just one of the many things I can't get around my head. Catch them, kill them and dump them in the name of saving the species. How does that work? Is this just another form of hypocrisy to maintain a country’s reputation for what it is doing to safeguard the environment? By the way, the BFT in the Algarve rarely dies before release. I can recommend Captain Joao A. Melo of Ocean Fun and Fishing. His boat the SAL X is in fantastic condition and really well-equipped.
We have booked next year hopefully we will not kill the fish and I will be strong enough to sit in the chair. Rozanne and Joao will suffer for many days following their encounter with their BFTs.
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Commentaires