The Curse of the Count: the Count counts himself a winner
Good breeding always shines through in the end.
On this occasion, it has taken less than 24 hours for the Curse of the Count to take its toll on the lowlife that pretend to be our masters: politicians.
Yesterday, the Count had the temerity to suggest that Mr Andy Burnham, a nonentity that has crawled out out of a hole and into a home office ministerial limousine, was a slimeball who acquaintance with truth, integrity or honesty was about as strong as the Count's acquaintance with financial solvency. A short conversation with any of the financial institutions from whom the Count has obtained large amounts of unrepayable money will establish just how distant such an acquaintance is.
The Count's avenging angels came in the unlikely form of APACs. These worthy citizens are, by all accounts, bean counters who spend their days shoveling mountains of money from one financial institution to another. If any of you know of any way of helping APACs reduce this mountain by diverting some of it into the bottomless pit of the Count's bank account, you will be assured of a friendly welcome at any of the Count's estates in Siberia.
Take a deep breath while we try to disentangle the battle of the bean counters.
In the Red Corner, the Home Office claimed that ID fraud costs £1.7 billion a year. This a a very convenient figure at a convenient time: just before ID cards are debated in Parliament, they produce figures to show that ID fraud is greater than the cost of ID cards. Within that number, they included £504 million for ID fraud using plastic cards.
In the Blue Corner, APACs, which actually has the numbers says that plastic card ID fraud is less than £37 million. The £504 million realtes to total losses on plastic cards which come from all sorts of sources. Oh well, the Red Corner has only inflated reality thirteen fold. Surely more reality is better than less, so what's wrong with inflating the numbers thirteen fold?
Back to the Red Corner. They included £395 million, which is the total cost of all money laundering. Again, at most 10% of money laundering relies on ID fraud.
Faced with an unwlecome dose of reality, the Home Office (not Mr Andy Burnham who appears incapable of defending his own numbers in case he gets associated with bad news, ie with himself) has said their numbers were "for illustrative purposes".
What was the Home Office trying to illustrate? That they can not be trusted with the truth? That they are lying scumbags?
At this point, we can hear the howls of anguish from politicians who complain about loss of respect for authority (ie themselves). And they wonder why this has come about. Most of the population can put two and two together. Ask a politician to add two and two together and he will ask "what do you want the answer to be? What answer will generate the best headline for tomorrow? What answer will best advance my career?"
So the Count will now progress from Counting to multiplication. We will start with a simple lesson for Mr Andy Burnham. What is two times two? Too difficult. OK. Try this one: If politicians lie what happens to trust in politicians? Drrrrrr........
On this occasion, it has taken less than 24 hours for the Curse of the Count to take its toll on the lowlife that pretend to be our masters: politicians.
Yesterday, the Count had the temerity to suggest that Mr Andy Burnham, a nonentity that has crawled out out of a hole and into a home office ministerial limousine, was a slimeball who acquaintance with truth, integrity or honesty was about as strong as the Count's acquaintance with financial solvency. A short conversation with any of the financial institutions from whom the Count has obtained large amounts of unrepayable money will establish just how distant such an acquaintance is.
The Count's avenging angels came in the unlikely form of APACs. These worthy citizens are, by all accounts, bean counters who spend their days shoveling mountains of money from one financial institution to another. If any of you know of any way of helping APACs reduce this mountain by diverting some of it into the bottomless pit of the Count's bank account, you will be assured of a friendly welcome at any of the Count's estates in Siberia.
Take a deep breath while we try to disentangle the battle of the bean counters.
In the Red Corner, the Home Office claimed that ID fraud costs £1.7 billion a year. This a a very convenient figure at a convenient time: just before ID cards are debated in Parliament, they produce figures to show that ID fraud is greater than the cost of ID cards. Within that number, they included £504 million for ID fraud using plastic cards.
In the Blue Corner, APACs, which actually has the numbers says that plastic card ID fraud is less than £37 million. The £504 million realtes to total losses on plastic cards which come from all sorts of sources. Oh well, the Red Corner has only inflated reality thirteen fold. Surely more reality is better than less, so what's wrong with inflating the numbers thirteen fold?
Back to the Red Corner. They included £395 million, which is the total cost of all money laundering. Again, at most 10% of money laundering relies on ID fraud.
Faced with an unwlecome dose of reality, the Home Office (not Mr Andy Burnham who appears incapable of defending his own numbers in case he gets associated with bad news, ie with himself) has said their numbers were "for illustrative purposes".
What was the Home Office trying to illustrate? That they can not be trusted with the truth? That they are lying scumbags?
At this point, we can hear the howls of anguish from politicians who complain about loss of respect for authority (ie themselves). And they wonder why this has come about. Most of the population can put two and two together. Ask a politician to add two and two together and he will ask "what do you want the answer to be? What answer will generate the best headline for tomorrow? What answer will best advance my career?"
So the Count will now progress from Counting to multiplication. We will start with a simple lesson for Mr Andy Burnham. What is two times two? Too difficult. OK. Try this one: If politicians lie what happens to trust in politicians? Drrrrrr........
posted by Count Kostov at
1:53 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home