Posts by The Nazz

I trust that Morrisons lose and it sets a defining precedent.

Of course, it should then also apply to such as those who incorrectly e-mailed out the Journo's details on the porn age thing : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47962405

And as Swarthy says above, it is Management's failings that are the real fault not the rogue/hapless employee that does the actual deed.

As has been said multiple times, it is only when govt (national AND local) employees, especially the highly remunerated "Managers", suffer the repercussions themselves will things start to improve.

And should such events occur in the future, and Insurance pays out, then recover the excess and increased premiums from those actually responsible.

I'd love to see the headline.

Once the politicians have finished f*cking about over Brexit, and their own personal agendas.

"Westminster Mental Hospital says thank you for the patients."

I know i'm slow but ...

It's just dawned on me that lobbed is not much different to lobbied.

As in, the huge media companies have lobbed more money at the pollies than the techy lobbers.

Back to auditing, and follow the money.

"Part of HE's case is that Autonomy secretly funnelled cash to resellers." and "Neither side appears to dispute that cash made it's way from Autonomy to resellers"

WTF.

Page 2 of "Double Entry Bookkeeping for Dummies" * : If in doubt whether an entry goes in as a debit or a credit, look at which side it goes in the cash/bank account and stick the other entry in the opposite side." * pre Sage, Quickbooks et al.

Unless the cash "secretly funnelled" was off the record, from the black economy (which i very much doubt and doesn't appear to be the case) then there MUST be an entry in the cash/bank account. Cash paid out. NOT very secret. Whether the other entry is a) a loan to "Debtor A" , b) a gift/bung to a third party to buy our stuff or alternatively c) "secretive marketing expenses" doesn't really matter. Only if there are no entries made can it be fraud. Otherwise it's clearly there in black and white, for either sides Auditors/due dilligence experts to take a view upon. The audit trail starts with the cash/bank account.

As an example, Lidl sent me a £5 off voucher if i bought £30 worth of stuff, which i did. How can that be fraudulent?

They would have recorded it as either a) Sales/Revenue of £25 or alternatively b) Sales/Revenue of £30 and marketing expenses of £5. Same net profit either way. May well be wrong but I suspect accounting rules and auditing require the latter. Otherwise , the former would screw and REDUCE the gross margin/profitability on sales.

HPE appear to be claiming that Autonomy overstated both sales ( ie revenue) and profitability (net revenue). Some feat.

I dread to think what ...

personalised ads for a three day old would look like.

Part II. A sequel. A follow up, pretty please.

Nice job.

I now look forward to the same on that Megan Sparkle lass.

Tbh, I do have a little sympathy for the lad, no way on earth would i ever want an upbringing like he's had. Never was a fan of Princess Diana.

Spotted the problem.

Easy. How on earth can you transfer pupil details when there are none? Aren't they all students these days?

Virtual reality huh? Been there and failed.

The wife (now ex for those who haven't been paying attention) had her own version of reality.

What a ridiculous procedure and process.

Why on earth should this take a year to sort out?**

The single issue is, did Autonomy make fraudulent accounting entries in their published accounts.

All the Judge needs to ask is "which are the fraudulent accounting transactions, carried out by whom, under the direct instruction/authority of whom." (tbf he'd probably use much better grammar than i.)

Which is something that could easily, and really ought to be determined outside the courtroom, by a technical department, probably forensic accountants or independent auditors, appointed by the Court. Use the Court hearing to go through the final report on this.

IIRC didn't the SFO pretty much do that and conclude that there was no cause to even consider a prosecution? Or similar.

** a cynic would suggest that with X barristers and Y solicitors on each side, paid on a time basis, it'll stay as it is, thank you very much m'lord.

Edit : What the new Court system IT really needs first up is a fact checker.

First time ...

i've seen the Victim Surcharge described as a Tax. But that's what it is.

The mind boggles as to what Microsoft will do with their £255.

Curious and curiouser.

IANAA either but it seems to me that :

HPE's case seems to be that Autonomy "pumped" sales ( US term Revenue) so as to misrepresent their true volume, and profitability of the business therefore their worth.

In a simple example, Autonomy may well have made a number of "deals" , totalling say £200m, for contracts for upto 5 years duration.

And even if they did, and booked the whole £200m up front in the P & L year in which the deal was made**, (which seems to be HPE's main grumble) the Balance Sheet would show Debtors of £200m and the notes to the accounts would give a breakdown of the years in which the £200m was due.

And if that wasn't obvious to HPE how difficult would it have been for HPE, or their due diligence professionals, to actually examine some or all of the contracts making up the £200m to see precisely what was involved. Not difficult.

** there again, from limited knowledge, i cannot see how booking all of the revenue upfront (or indeed accelerating a major part of it) complies with UK accounting standards nor how on earth it would be allowed by the auditors. HPE do seem correct in saying that revenue should be booked (roughly) in line with the provision of that service.

A £12 magazine subscription, a £1200 National Trust lifetime membership (how many years is that gonna be?) actually paid and settled up front, with immediate benefits, no-one is going to quibble about that being booked at the point of sale. That's what it is.

But £200m with a well defined contractual period of service provision? Different kettle of fish. Hence the long term development of accounting standards.

Really?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47708144

"Robert Ashcroft, chief executive of PRS for Music, which collects royalties for music artists, welcomed the directive as "a massive step forward" for consumers and creatives.

"It's about making sure that ordinary people can upload videos and music to platforms like YouTube without being held liable for copyright - that responsibility will henceforth be transferred to the platforms," he said."

Really? That's a massive step forward for consumers?

Is he encouraging me, authorising me to upload any or all of my significant music collection to the likes of You-tube? Without mentionning how he and others will then sting the platforms for monopolised fees? How disingenuous of him.

And yet as of yesterday he would have me believe, that despite my paying in full for that music, some on multiple formats, vinyl, tape, CD that i ONLY had a licence to listen to it at home. Apparently, now i have licence to upload it wherever and whenever.

Maybe the MEP's should have asked the Music industries ( other media too i suppose) to have got their own house in order first or at least as a condition of this passing. The stories are legendary of the Big Music Corps ripping off the creatives, artists, songwriters etc big time. "Hey look, your album sold a million copies but made a loss". Oh yeah.

Maybe it's time it was made law that Copyright stays with the creator(s), is not assignable in any circumstances, and if any media company wishes to use any part of it, they must negotiate and obtain a licence themselves.

ps how much do i owe the BBC for using their article? (Not that i haven't already paid the BBC for the year).

The always flawed car analogy.

"Here mate, take my car and run over that ex of mine"

"Will do," the later " Job done, though the front bumpers trashed."

I don't suppose the driver would be immune to any charges.

Like my undies then. They have a ball park with the occasional strong gust (and disgust) of wind.

And no, it's not modern mythology.

Soul music - What's going on?

"Lynch and Hussain," said HPE in its court filings, "caused Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices that artificially inflated and accelerated Autonomy's reported revenues, understated its costs of goods sold (thereby artificially inflating its gross margins), misrepresented its rate of organic growth and the nature and quality of its revenues, and overstated its gross and net profits."

I can understand, just, HPE's claim that Autonomy inflated it's gross margins by way of schemes to buy and sell equipment, and pay resellers to do so. Book the revenue on the top line, and move the costs incurred by Autonomy away from the "cost of goods" ie above the gross margin line, and into "other expenses" below the gross. Even if Autonomy actually did this, booked it's costs lower down the P & L it would still have no net effect whatsoever on Net Profits.

HPE however claim that Autonomy overstated its Net Profits, which is explicitly stating they didn't book their scheme costs in the P & L at all.

Even if time shifted, ie revenue in period 1, costs in period 2 etc it only enhances the first period and only then until the most basic of auditing procedures uncovers it.

Good luck to the Judge sitting through this.

An anecdote

Few years back, (2015? too lazy/busy to check) was in Tenerife holiday apartments when the Rugby World Cup final was on, Australia v New Zealand.

Asked the receptionist (fortunately her English was far, far superior to my pidgin Spanish) what Channel number was Sky?

Got to the room, tuned in, fuzzy scrambled screechy screen. Pressed forward channel a few times and stumbled upon a German TV (surprisingly?) showing the game, albeit with a German langauge commentary (unsurprisingly). This situation actually led to a vastly enhanced viewing experience. Some sound is better than absolute silence, that is hard work, but not understanding 99% ( the occasional technical term aside) of the commentary made it easy to mentally block out and concentrate on the play.

Later i asked the receptionist what was going on, the reason for this. Sky demanded several £1000's to allow the broadcast to be screened in the rooms, the German TV station zilch.

YMMV

Ok, ok, so i'm no George Soros

But if large scale buybacks generally result in an increase in the stock prices, why would anyone sell to the buyer eg Oracle, and not simply sell on the market afterwards? Are the buybacks compulsory on stockholders?

Lead by example.

If Matt Hancock ( et al ) think this is a good idea, let them lead by example and make all their own, and close families, private health data freely available.

Several years back, when the then PM Blair, whilst telling all us plebs that we must have the multiple MMR jab,. wouldn't even give a simple yes/no answer as to whether his own little sprog had had the jab.

But as per usual, when many millions of people use Facebook, numerous health apps, and don't care a toss what happens to their personal data what hope is there?

wtf does every aspect of life, this C21 life, have to be digitalised?

Meanwhile in Bristol ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-bristol-47656370/bristol-nursery-locks-toys-away-for-a-month

They've locked all the toys (apt) away and given the kids cardboard boxes and tin cans to play with. From reports, the kids appear far more happier and play much more imaginatively.

I'm not a fan of the word "students" for hitherto school pupils, but from what age does this take effect? Even the 3, 4 years olds in pre-school? Pre-school, many of which are actually attached to and run by schools.

The getaway drivers* of IT?

Are "developers" akin to the getaway drivers involved in robbing a bank or store? Though the driver has not robbed the bank/store themselves, they nevertheless get a hefty sentence once the gang is convicted.

Where the misuse of data is a crime, are the developers fairly considered an accessory? Indeed, without their app the collection of data wouldn't have even occurred (ok, ok, someone somewhere else would have).

In civil matters, how long before developers are routinely named as co-defendants in lawsuits?

* no pun intended.

Should he be applauded?

What with the perceived "success" of the Autopilot, it's numerous fatal and severe accidents ( admittedly a tiny percentage of use) and misconception that it's a complete self driving tool, perhaps he should have removed all software and working copies?

Interesting how the surnames of those involved have a common look to them too. Or is it the forename?