The New Monopoly Industries

It is a long time since monopoly industries were outlawed. But even in recent times, monopoly-type events have occurred. It is not long ago that Microsoft was was condemned for using its powerful position in the market to drive out competitors. It was stopped. Commercial monopolies are not permitted.

And yet we see new monopolies springing up but nothing is done about them. They are allowed to lie and cheat to their hearts content. Further, they use public monies to do so. What could be more corrupt? Are we to believe that everyone in these new monopolies is altruistic? In tobacco control, for example, I do believe that Richard Doll was fairly altruistic, but it is hard to believe that his successors are equally so – or even remotely so. Why should they be when there are easy bucks to be made with full monopoly Government consent?

How many such monopolies are there?

Frankly, I think that there are thousand and thousands of them. I saw somewhere that there are 20,000 or more monopoly charities in the UK alone which rely upon Government for over 70% of their income. Is there any competition among charities to provide services? It seems to me that not. If a charity wants to apply to the National Lottery for funds, it needs only to make a good case. If it does so, it might well receive a grant. Does the National Lottery invite other submissions for grants for the same purpose?

It is probable that most of these charities are genuine, but one cannot help but wonder what oversight of the use of grants exists. It isn’t difficult to imagine a good case being made, but the case being faulty, and the grant being wasted. Is that not, essentially, what happened with KidsCompany? It had no reserves, spent all its money to the extent that it could not pay its staff, got a £10,000,000 grant, paid its staff, and then folded. How could such a thing happen if there was even the slightest real oversight of its financial affairs? I don’t mean accounting and record keeping. That’s easy to fudge. I mean where the money is going to in reality. “Here’s £100 to pay your hostel costs. Sign this receipt”. Wrong. “Here’s a cheque for £100 payable to your hostel ‘account payee only'”. Right. The Government is supposed to be changing FoI requests to include charities which receive public funds. But is that itself a fudge? Is the intention for the Government to divest itself of responsibility? Remember that Government itself is a monopoly. It’s easy to give public money away, but a damn sight more difficult to ensure that it is spent properly. One event that has stuck in my mind is that the National Lottery gave ASH £500,000. What charitable purpose could ASH spend that money on? ASH does not DO looking after derelict smokers. What did ASH do with that money? Lottery funds are just as much ‘public money’ as are Government grants.

I have not got to the other monopolies yet. There are monstrous monopolies, such as the UN, EU, UNESCO, WHO, etc. There are thousands of them and they are all monopolies. The NHS is a monopoly, despite private health provision being available.

Such monopolies have multiplied to such an extent that the vastly expensive monopoly known  as ‘Government’ can no longer control the monopolies which it helped to create. NGOs and Quangos are other monopolies which are totally out of control. Part of the problem is that some of these Quangos are not responsible to the UK Parliament. They are responsible to the EU. Why were the Somerset Levels allowed to flood? It was obvious that not dredging the rivers would lead to that flooding. It was because the environment authority was governed by EU rules, which it dared not disobey. Much the same applies to Cumbria.

===

Is there any solution to the monopolistic frauds? I think that there is.

Carl Phillips put his finger on it. He was talking about peer review of papers published in ‘scientific’ journals. His suggestion was that peer review should no longer be done by mates of the authors, but should be ‘crowd sourced’. The internet makes such reviewing perfectly possible. I suppose that only qualified people could put themselves forward as ‘crowd sourced’ reviewers, and that would be reasonable. But ‘qualified’ would not have to be too restrictive. They would not have to be from the precise discipline and could be, say, mathematicians, physicists, statisticians, etc. The idea would be to break the monopoly.

Government is the ultimate monopoly. That must be recognised. Parliamentary oversight is no longer sufficient in this complex age. Too many politicians are part of the Government monopoly. That did not used to be the case. There were not dozens and dozens of ministers. There were no civil servants like Andrew Black, who had anti-smoker agendas. Civil Servants were truly apolitical, and, most importantly, objective. If a Civil Servant mislead a Minister, it was the Civil Servant who was sacked and not the Minister. Minister Soubry was moved on after her dismal display before the Commons Committee about the Tobacco Directive and, especially, her ignorance about the ecig provisions. What happened to that Australian git, Andrew Black? Is he still a Civil Servant?

I despair.

===

Is the world really any more complex that it was 100 years ago? I have my doubts. What has been happening is that the information age has brought more of the worlds ills and problems to our attention. Those ills and problems were always there, but we knew nothing about them. I no longer watch the news, other than the headlines. I am fed up with being assaulted by hysteria and sensationalism. For example, the invasion of Europe by young, fit Moslem males could be stopped in a jiffy. “NO!! YOU ARE NOT COMING IN FURTHER THAN SAFETY”. Bona Fide families might be afforded more succour, but single men should share a tent. When I was in the air force in Cyprus, four of us single airmen shared a tent. There was never a problem. There was a lavatory block and a canteen. If you needed a pee at night, you nipped outside. No one suffered and everyone was healthy.

Apart from the boredom,  I really enjoyed the tent-based life.

I shall conclude.

Somehow, the New Monopoly Industries must be brought to account, not only at home but internationally. And there is another thing. Any politician who supports the EU must be seen to be supporting graft and corruption. That’s the way it is, and it will only be corrected when the EU is ripped apart and de-funded. Either Cameron et al are complicit or they are stupid. I do not believe that they are stupid.

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The New Monopoly Industries”

  1. smokingscot Says:

    You remembered correctly. £511,046 was in fact given to ASH Scotland in 2009 to fund research through a certain Dr. Sean Semple at Aberdeen University. However only £500k filtered through to Aberdeen. The rest was used to set up a web page and hire fronts for the project, called “refresh”.

    You’ll see that Semple has been the recipient of quite a number of grants specifically designed to add scientific credence that support ASH (Scotland’s) position.

    The £500k was to assist in their push to make homes smoke-free where there are sproggs.

    http://www.abdn.ac.uk/iahs/research/profiles/sean.semple

    However a further £850,000 was also given to ASH (Wales) by Big Lottery with some nebulous BS chucked in to justify their funding request.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-18022123

    I did a very long post about the Scottish thing in March 2014. But it’s boring, with the usual stuff about BS, corruption, nepotism and breach of trust. And let’s face it, who apart from an anorak gives a flying toss about PM 2.5’s! Oh and almost all the links I used have been quietly removed from the Web.

    • junican Says:

      There is no doubt in my mind that universities have stopped teaching. And that they have stopped doing primary research. By ‘primary research’ I mean pushing the boundaries. Witness the ‘research’ on the affects of SHS on cats and dogs. Someone paid for that research, but it was and is pointless.
      To hell with them all!

      • Some French Bloke Says:

        By ‘primary research’ I mean pushing the boundaries

        But basically, doesn’t science merely uncover the limits of the physical world with each new advance, while its derivative, technology, inadvertently produces the illusion of boundless expansion?

      • junican Says:

        That idea is too clever for me, SFB. I see science as describing the world and technology finding ways to exploit that knowledge.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: