The below is written in response to this Guardian article and thread: "Status affects how readily people return smiles, research reveals - People who feel powerful are more likely to return smiles of those they see as low status, according to study"
Disappointing, Alok Jha, you should really have known better before splashing this "scientific" research on the pages of the Graun.
Fundamental flaws of the study as reported:
1. Inappropriate Indicators for both Independent and Dependent variables
The stimulus is meant to be "status", the response "submission", and the mediator "power".
Never mind that there is a question about whether a "smile" could be an indicator of "submission" as other commenters already picked up on. And never mind whether the electro signals picked up by the new-fangled gadget are actually corresponding to a smile, as even Carr admits that the subjects were just sat there with a stoic face watching a video screen. (And how can you justify that the signals recorded are indeed a submissive "smile" and not an arrogant "smirk"??? Such question is clearly too complicated for Carr and his team to consider and so they conveniently ignore that and carried on regardless.)
Never mind also that "Status" is indicated by using the proxy of "professsionals" versus "menial workers". As someone pointed out earlier, without knowing the subjects' own background and history it's hard to judge whether they would actually perceive these actors-in-costumes-on-a-TV-screen are indeed high versus low status (and indeed, whether their status perceptions are to do with these actors qua actors, or the roles that they were assigned to play). It's just too bad Carr and his team didn't think about using some kind of standardised measurement tool regarding individual perceptions of occupational status, to make sure they are measuring what they think they are measuring as regards participants' own, rather than researcher-assumed, status perceptions.
Never mind also that "Power" is "primed" by asking subjects to write an essay about their positive and negative experiences. That's the most egregious of the indicators used of the three basic variables being tested in this experiment. Carr and his team chose to ignore validated tools that have been developed to measure self-efficacy (which is really a more appropriate concept in this scenario than the multidimensional construct "Power"), using their laughable exercise as a proxy to gauge subjects' self-perception of "power" when nothing had actually been used to measure their perceived power (or self-efficacy).
It was all just assumed that writing an essay about yourself will have primed you to feel powerful or disempowered when confronting strangers-on-a-TV-screen, regardless of what personality type you are (and indeed, whether you like watching TV or not!).
No, never mind ALL OF THE ABOVE, because they aren't even the worst flaw of this study design. Even if one takes all of the above on face value (no matter how straining of the face validity test these indicators are presenting to us), I cannot believe that no-one, but no-one (not the ethics committee, not the funding body, and certainly not Carr nor his helpers), stop for one second and ask themselves this:
Why is it okay to assume that WATCHING A VIDEO of some actors on a TV screen is the SAME AS INTERACTING WITH THEM IN PERSON????
Helloooo?? Do you think you are actually interacting with George Clooney (or say, Scarlett Johannsson) when you watch him/her on screen??? Somehow, I'd think one would have to be pretty deluded to think this way.
I think the 55 subjects of this study could pretty much tell the difference between smiling at someONE in person (whether initiating or returning a smile), or smiling AT someTHING that happens on a TV screen.
I don't think these 55 subjects, if they are halfway normal humans, would be smiling PERSONALLY AT, say, Zac Braff on TV, irrespective of whether Braff was playing a doctor in Scrubs or a bum in Garden State.
Sure, they might smile at the show, but that's not the same thing as initiating or returning a PERSONAL smile to the actor now is it??
So why is Alok Jha bringing this excretable piece of "research" to our attention??
2. Inappropriate and Unjustified Overreaching of Conclusion and Generalisability
Recall that this is a lab experiment with 55 volunteers. No actual demographics of the volunteers given, and given the sample size, impossible to generalise their facial expressions as being representive of the human race (or even just the American population in general). Yet Carr glibly talks about his findings as if they are automatically applicable to everyday situatoin that you and I would face in our normal course of life.
It is even cheekier for him to use the Senior VP in an office as an example, when he knows full well that his under-powered lab study did not take place in a natural setting whatsoever.
But then, that's what loads of I/O psychologists do - they think they are generating "scientific truth" with an experimental design using fancy gadgets, when really they failed abysmally to even think up a half-decent research design to allow them to test what they wish they are testing.
If anthropologists try to make claims like this Carr guy did given similar study sample and design, they will be laughed out of the auditorium much less having their findings published in national newspapers because their findings happen to be "cute" and "counter-intuitive"!
Really, Alok, you did science?
--------
This was first published on 15 October 2012 at 18:57. It was submitted to the Guardian thread on my moderated account just a couple of minutes prior to this time-stamp.
Unfortunately, as of 16 October 16:48, the mods don't have the balls to put the above criticism through. Despite the Guardian always claiming they want to publish "good" rather than BAD SCIENCE, and despite the campaign run by one of its own star columnists Ben Goldacre who is a lot harsher on bad science reporting than I had done above.
Oh well, Guardian is proving itself to be quite equal to my low estimation of it.
One more thing I will say: it is a disgrace to get a grad with only a primary degree in physics to act as "Science correspondent", much less to cover social science studies! Alok Jha is clearly out of his depth and in over his head. It's like trying to get a reporter just learning his chops on Russia to become a seasoned Middle-East correspondent, FFS.
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Monday, 15 October 2012
Thursday, 11 October 2012
In response to Guardian's reportage of Mo Yan's Nobel Prize win
The relevant article is here: Headline as of 18:47 UK time: "Mo Yan Wins Nobel Prize in Literature 2012: Novelist, the first ever Chinese literature Nobel laureate, praised for 'hallucinatory realism'"
Well said!!!
And despite Sarah Crown's later comment about how the Guardian has amended the story, the headline and the standfirst still unashamedly label Mo Yan as the "first Chinese" to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.
A bloody disgrace.
There is a lot more I could say about the Graun's CCP bias in its other reporting, but I shall refrain from saying anything here seeing as I am already pre-moderated and every single comment I made has to have first gone through Guardian censorship.
---------------
The above comment was submitted at 6:44pm on the Guardian website. As expected, it hasn't gone through, at all. More importantly, the standfirst referring to Mo Yan as the "first Chinese" to win the Nobel Prize for Literature is still NOT CORRECTED as of 12 October, 2012. Says it all about Guardian bias, really. I rest my case.
frothwrath
11 October 2012 3:37PM
The only reason Gao Xingjian no longer has Chinese citizenship is that his citizenship was revoked by the Chinese government after it expelled him from the country. It's very disappointing that the Guardian, presumably just for the sake of a headline, is legitimising the political persecution of Gao Xingjian in this way.
Since Gao was born and raised in China, writes in Chinese and never chose to give up his citizenship, it's ridiculous to say Mo is the first Chinese writer to win the prize. The most you could say is that he's the first PRC citizen to win it. Since Gao's citizenship was revoked precisely because of his writing, what is actually meant by "Mo is the first Chinese writer to win the prize" is "Mo is the first Chinese writer to win who doesn't annoy the Chinese government"
Disgraceful, Guardian.
Well said!!!
And despite Sarah Crown's later comment about how the Guardian has amended the story, the headline and the standfirst still unashamedly label Mo Yan as the "first Chinese" to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.
A bloody disgrace.
There is a lot more I could say about the Graun's CCP bias in its other reporting, but I shall refrain from saying anything here seeing as I am already pre-moderated and every single comment I made has to have first gone through Guardian censorship.
---------------
The above comment was submitted at 6:44pm on the Guardian website. As expected, it hasn't gone through, at all. More importantly, the standfirst referring to Mo Yan as the "first Chinese" to win the Nobel Prize for Literature is still NOT CORRECTED as of 12 October, 2012. Says it all about Guardian bias, really. I rest my case.
In response to Mo Yan's win of the Nobel Prize for Literature 2012
In response to 11 October 2012 12:58PM typingfromwork's comment
Wat.
Red Sorghum was about the Sino-Japanese war. It had nothing to do with the cultural revolution.
A good place to start on that topic would be To Live.
The fact that 3 people recommended your comment shows how ill-read the average Guardian reader is of contemporary Chinese literature.
"To Live" is by Yu Hua, NOT Mo Yan. Jeez.
Yu Hua is way better than Mo Yan, IMO, so I would second your recommendation of "To Live", but not as an intro to Mo Yan's oeuvre.
Also, Guo XinJiang's Soul Mountain is a masterpiece in Chinese, but sadly, it has seriously suffered from a muddled and far-too-literal translation so that the magical realism (Mo Yan isn't the best exponent of this genre of Chinese magical realism, either) inherent in the novel is grossly inelegantly distorted.
I would also refrain from relying on Goldblatt's commendations -- yes, Columbia U is and has been a key institution in training literary Chinese translators ever since it was one of the few pioneering Western institutions that sponsored Chinese academics and students at the turn of the last century. However, Goldblatt's own Chinese-to-English translated works leave a lot to be desired, the use of inelegant Americanisms being the least of the problems.
I'm still looking for a translator who can render Chinese literature into English to the same standard as what Thomas J. Harper and Edward G. Seidensticker were able to do for Tanizaki's In Praise of Shadows (original in Japanese). But I haven't been able to find that translator yet. (And don't mention Julia Lovell either, I'm still angry with her distortions of Lu Xun's writings). Murakami is "lucky" to be writing in Japanese, as generally the standard of literary translations from Japanese to English is far superior to those from Chinese to English.
As for a nominee for next year's Nobel Prize that fulfils the "non-European, non-male" criteria as suggested by a poster above, I would say: Banana Yoshimoto. Certainly she should be recognised before Murakami in terms of the beauty of her prose and the emotional depths of her novels, despite their languid pace and homely settings.
Sunday, 5 August 2012
In response to "Will Self and Modernism"
In response to the "Will Self: Modernism and Me" thread on the Guardian (with minor additions and typos corrected).
I have enjoyed Wil Self's writings on these pages before, but this particular piece, I must say, is unfortunately self-indulgent beyond words, even though I hate to agree with those naysayers who have an aversion towards so-called 'big' words. It is ironic that Will Self counts Franz Kafka as one of his literary heros, for it was Franz Kafka who said, in critiquing Charles Dickens:
Although Dickens' and Self's verbosity are of very different kinds, I think Kafka's trenchant critique against heartless overfloridity can be equally stinging where Self's writing in the above piece is concerned. Many commenters have already pointed out passages of "awful insipidity" and heartless, overwrought style in Self's writing above, so I won't belabour them here. I just want to say that it is a bit unfair to portray those critical of Self's style above as brainless philistines who can't be bothered learning big words. I myself love reading philosophical tracts by Continental philosophers in my spare time (yes, really); that doesn't mean that I am not allergic to overly florid writing that wants to wear the stamp of cleverness so earnestly on its sleeve. I can stomach, nay, actually admire, playful cleverness; but Self is just too woodenly displaying his learning (evidenced by the number of thesaurus words conspicuously showcased) in the above article for me to enjoy this piece. Sorry Will.
I also must agree with quite a few commenters here and say that Will Self has got his idea of modernism arse-backwards. What he's straining for is actually not modernism, but post-modernism. What he perceives as his "modernist" critique of pre-modernist writing (or Romantic writing) is actually postmodernist critique of modernist writing (linearity of structure; idea of straightforward progress; technical mastery -- all these are stylistic markers not just of modernist architecture but also of modernist literature, fuelled by a postwar optimism that in retrospect could look trite and naive and non-human.)
So unfortunately Self's bellyaching about not being able to find a 'modernist' way forward is precisely because he's misunderstanding about the task that lays before him. Sure, he made a side note about postmodernist writing not being up to the job by merely "copy-and-pasting" narratives. But that's doing postmodernism a disservice, since bricolage and pastiche are not the only tools at the postmodernist's disposal.
The things that Self admits to hankering after -- chief amongst which being the insertion of authorial will inside the story as a way to destablise and democratise text -- is something that another British novelist, the unabashedly postmodernist Mr. Gilbert Adair, does extremely well. Unfortunately, Will Self gave no indication that he's ever read the late Mr. Adair's work. And this omission seems especially jarring when Self goes on and on about how much he is hoping to find a way out of the modernist morasse to which English fiction has descended. And especially when he wrote about how JG Ballard found a way out via science fiction; he seems to have not realised that another British novelist has also found a way forward via pastiching genre fiction (in Adair's case, it's detective fiction), where Adair entertainingly inverts the well-worn tropes of detective novels to create wonderful spaces not visible in conventional narrative arcs and characterisation.
So whilst I applaud Will Self for nailing the malaise of English novels on its head by arguing that the avant-garde is not about saying the 'unsayable' by merely injecting the taboo into the conventional a la Martin Amis and Irvine Welsh; that it is actually about writing the 'unwritable' by boldly experimenting with form and confounding readers' narratival expectations; Self is entirely mistaken by casting himself as the Lone Mariner in the above article struggling against the tide where none had gone before him. Not only has the late Gilbert Adair already shown us the way through the murky waters of English fiction by his rhetorical brilliance; other contemporary writers are also figuring out ways to move the English novel forward (cf. Jennifer Egan, David Mitchell). Although Egan and Mitchell may well be described as 'bantamweight' writers (to borrow another commenter's useful metaphor), and Adair's novels are sadly neglected by the mainstream (not unexpected given that he was one of the very first to have bravely swam against the conventional tide), it is completely disingenuous (and self-indulgent) of Self to portray himself as a lone voice in the wilderness and forget to pay his debt to others already shining the beacon before him.Rather than being the first truly 'modernist' (or 'postmodern') English novel as Self is so painstakingly portraying his latest work as, 'Umbrella' will have to compare itself with the benchmark set by the late Adair.
I have enjoyed Wil Self's writings on these pages before, but this particular piece, I must say, is unfortunately self-indulgent beyond words, even though I hate to agree with those naysayers who have an aversion towards so-called 'big' words. It is ironic that Will Self counts Franz Kafka as one of his literary heros, for it was Franz Kafka who said, in critiquing Charles Dickens:
" Dickens's opulence and great, careless prodigality, but in consequence passages of awful insipidity in which he wearily works over effects he has already acheived... There is a heartlessness behind his sentimentally overflowing style... his use of vague, abstract metaphors." (Kafka cited in Gabriel Josiponvici's -- yep, the same Josiponvici of whom Self waxed lyrical about in his article above -- introduction to Franz Kafka's "Collected Stories", Everyman's Library, p. xv, my emphasis.)
Although Dickens' and Self's verbosity are of very different kinds, I think Kafka's trenchant critique against heartless overfloridity can be equally stinging where Self's writing in the above piece is concerned. Many commenters have already pointed out passages of "awful insipidity" and heartless, overwrought style in Self's writing above, so I won't belabour them here. I just want to say that it is a bit unfair to portray those critical of Self's style above as brainless philistines who can't be bothered learning big words. I myself love reading philosophical tracts by Continental philosophers in my spare time (yes, really); that doesn't mean that I am not allergic to overly florid writing that wants to wear the stamp of cleverness so earnestly on its sleeve. I can stomach, nay, actually admire, playful cleverness; but Self is just too woodenly displaying his learning (evidenced by the number of thesaurus words conspicuously showcased) in the above article for me to enjoy this piece. Sorry Will.
I also must agree with quite a few commenters here and say that Will Self has got his idea of modernism arse-backwards. What he's straining for is actually not modernism, but post-modernism. What he perceives as his "modernist" critique of pre-modernist writing (or Romantic writing) is actually postmodernist critique of modernist writing (linearity of structure; idea of straightforward progress; technical mastery -- all these are stylistic markers not just of modernist architecture but also of modernist literature, fuelled by a postwar optimism that in retrospect could look trite and naive and non-human.)
So unfortunately Self's bellyaching about not being able to find a 'modernist' way forward is precisely because he's misunderstanding about the task that lays before him. Sure, he made a side note about postmodernist writing not being up to the job by merely "copy-and-pasting" narratives. But that's doing postmodernism a disservice, since bricolage and pastiche are not the only tools at the postmodernist's disposal.
The things that Self admits to hankering after -- chief amongst which being the insertion of authorial will inside the story as a way to destablise and democratise text -- is something that another British novelist, the unabashedly postmodernist Mr. Gilbert Adair, does extremely well. Unfortunately, Will Self gave no indication that he's ever read the late Mr. Adair's work. And this omission seems especially jarring when Self goes on and on about how much he is hoping to find a way out of the modernist morasse to which English fiction has descended. And especially when he wrote about how JG Ballard found a way out via science fiction; he seems to have not realised that another British novelist has also found a way forward via pastiching genre fiction (in Adair's case, it's detective fiction), where Adair entertainingly inverts the well-worn tropes of detective novels to create wonderful spaces not visible in conventional narrative arcs and characterisation.
So whilst I applaud Will Self for nailing the malaise of English novels on its head by arguing that the avant-garde is not about saying the 'unsayable' by merely injecting the taboo into the conventional a la Martin Amis and Irvine Welsh; that it is actually about writing the 'unwritable' by boldly experimenting with form and confounding readers' narratival expectations; Self is entirely mistaken by casting himself as the Lone Mariner in the above article struggling against the tide where none had gone before him. Not only has the late Gilbert Adair already shown us the way through the murky waters of English fiction by his rhetorical brilliance; other contemporary writers are also figuring out ways to move the English novel forward (cf. Jennifer Egan, David Mitchell). Although Egan and Mitchell may well be described as 'bantamweight' writers (to borrow another commenter's useful metaphor), and Adair's novels are sadly neglected by the mainstream (not unexpected given that he was one of the very first to have bravely swam against the conventional tide), it is completely disingenuous (and self-indulgent) of Self to portray himself as a lone voice in the wilderness and forget to pay his debt to others already shining the beacon before him.Rather than being the first truly 'modernist' (or 'postmodern') English novel as Self is so painstakingly portraying his latest work as, 'Umbrella' will have to compare itself with the benchmark set by the late Adair.
Monday, 2 July 2012
Action Plan for Tackling Banking Corruption
Immediate Action (within 3 to 6 months) -- Pursue Criminal Prosecution of Banking Cheats:
1. Fully fund and support the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to carry out criminal investigations into fraudulent bankers with the full and unfettered cooperation of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the police.
2. Journalists should hold regulators as well as bankers to proper account. Demand tough sanctions and don't take a "we can't do that" for an answer. Combat lies in the media that there is a lack of legal basis to sue bankers on a criminal basis. The Fraud Act 2006 provides enough legal basis to sue bankers on account of the fraudulent manipulation of LIBOR as well as the mis-selling of financial products to businesses under the charge of false representation (c. 35 s. 2).
3. Do not allow politicians and media columnists to misrepresent the law by repeating the claim by FSA Chairman Lord Adair Turner that LIBOR is not a "qualifying instrument" under the "Act". Turner is muddying the waters (deliberately?) by pretending that the FSA's lack of power to pursue criminal prosecution is the same thing as the lack of actual UK fraud legislation to pursue bankers engaged in fraud.
Make no mistake, the two are different things -- FSA lacking power to criminally prosecute does NOT mean that there is no legal basis for the SFO or indeed individuals and businesses to pursue fraudulent banks and bankers on criminal charges under Fraud Act 2006.
4. Names of bankers under criminal investigation should be published and their photos splashed across the nation's newspapers, in exactly the same manner in which the London rioters have been named and shamed when they pillaged the city. White-collar pillagers of our economy should be named and shamed just like the rioters.
5. The Chancellor should make an immediate announcement that any future fines that the FSA is about to levy on the other 15 or so banks found to have manipulated LIBOR and other malpractice to go straight into the Exchequer and the public coffers, rather than allow these fines to line the pocket of the FSA itself.
6. The FSA should make immediate commitment to up its level of fines imposed on fraudulent banks to commensuate with actual level of systemic fraud uncovered. The fine should at least be equal to or greater than the annual bonus pot of a bank as well as being a significant percentage of their annual turnover to act a real deterrent against future institutional fraud.
Short Term (within 6-12 months):
1. Bring forward legislation that allows the Financial Services Bill to include new safeguards to make future prosecution against members of the banking industry quicker, easier and more robust.
However, this MUST NOT be used as a basis to pre-empt / pre-judge any current attempt to bring criminal charges against the CURRENT bunch of financial criminals. The Fraud Act 2006 established a "general conduct offence" and the current fraudsters need to be pursued to the fullest extent possible under current legislation.
2. Reform the FSA so that there is proper independence between the regulator and the City. At present the FSA is funded by the banking sector and its cosiness with the industry is displayed when the FSA fails to use its "strongest available sanction" -- imposing fines -- to the fullest extent possible. (£60m is a laughable pittance compared ot the £230m that the US authorities charged Barclays for the exact same offence.)
3. Strengthen the SFO by hiring more fraud investigators and providing it with proper powers and authority to seize materials and assets especially on large-scale fraud perpetuated across an industry. Strengthen links between the SFO and the Police and set up a special unit to tackle white-collar crime.
Long term (within 12 - 18 months):
1. Independent judge-led public inquiry a la Leveson. However, this must NOT be used as an excuse to kick the issue into the long grass, nor can it be used to perform another talking shop white-wash that obfuscate the fundamental tackling of actual fraudulent behaviours we are witnessing in the City.
2. The costs of this independent public inquiry must be met to a significant proportion by the banking industry itself rather than further drain the public coffers when we the public have already spent so much to bail them out over the last four years.
3. Restrict the influence of the City lobbyists in the form of the British Banking Association (BBA) on Parliament. The BBA must NOT be allowed to influence policy designed to regulate its members.
Sign here to campaign for economic justice and demand criminal prosecution of fraudulent bankers NOW.
1. Fully fund and support the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to carry out criminal investigations into fraudulent bankers with the full and unfettered cooperation of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the police.
2. Journalists should hold regulators as well as bankers to proper account. Demand tough sanctions and don't take a "we can't do that" for an answer. Combat lies in the media that there is a lack of legal basis to sue bankers on a criminal basis. The Fraud Act 2006 provides enough legal basis to sue bankers on account of the fraudulent manipulation of LIBOR as well as the mis-selling of financial products to businesses under the charge of false representation (c. 35 s. 2).
3. Do not allow politicians and media columnists to misrepresent the law by repeating the claim by FSA Chairman Lord Adair Turner that LIBOR is not a "qualifying instrument" under the "Act". Turner is muddying the waters (deliberately?) by pretending that the FSA's lack of power to pursue criminal prosecution is the same thing as the lack of actual UK fraud legislation to pursue bankers engaged in fraud.
Make no mistake, the two are different things -- FSA lacking power to criminally prosecute does NOT mean that there is no legal basis for the SFO or indeed individuals and businesses to pursue fraudulent banks and bankers on criminal charges under Fraud Act 2006.
4. Names of bankers under criminal investigation should be published and their photos splashed across the nation's newspapers, in exactly the same manner in which the London rioters have been named and shamed when they pillaged the city. White-collar pillagers of our economy should be named and shamed just like the rioters.
5. The Chancellor should make an immediate announcement that any future fines that the FSA is about to levy on the other 15 or so banks found to have manipulated LIBOR and other malpractice to go straight into the Exchequer and the public coffers, rather than allow these fines to line the pocket of the FSA itself.
6. The FSA should make immediate commitment to up its level of fines imposed on fraudulent banks to commensuate with actual level of systemic fraud uncovered. The fine should at least be equal to or greater than the annual bonus pot of a bank as well as being a significant percentage of their annual turnover to act a real deterrent against future institutional fraud.
Short Term (within 6-12 months):
1. Bring forward legislation that allows the Financial Services Bill to include new safeguards to make future prosecution against members of the banking industry quicker, easier and more robust.
However, this MUST NOT be used as a basis to pre-empt / pre-judge any current attempt to bring criminal charges against the CURRENT bunch of financial criminals. The Fraud Act 2006 established a "general conduct offence" and the current fraudsters need to be pursued to the fullest extent possible under current legislation.
2. Reform the FSA so that there is proper independence between the regulator and the City. At present the FSA is funded by the banking sector and its cosiness with the industry is displayed when the FSA fails to use its "strongest available sanction" -- imposing fines -- to the fullest extent possible. (£60m is a laughable pittance compared ot the £230m that the US authorities charged Barclays for the exact same offence.)
3. Strengthen the SFO by hiring more fraud investigators and providing it with proper powers and authority to seize materials and assets especially on large-scale fraud perpetuated across an industry. Strengthen links between the SFO and the Police and set up a special unit to tackle white-collar crime.
Long term (within 12 - 18 months):
1. Independent judge-led public inquiry a la Leveson. However, this must NOT be used as an excuse to kick the issue into the long grass, nor can it be used to perform another talking shop white-wash that obfuscate the fundamental tackling of actual fraudulent behaviours we are witnessing in the City.
2. The costs of this independent public inquiry must be met to a significant proportion by the banking industry itself rather than further drain the public coffers when we the public have already spent so much to bail them out over the last four years.
3. Restrict the influence of the City lobbyists in the form of the British Banking Association (BBA) on Parliament. The BBA must NOT be allowed to influence policy designed to regulate its members.
Sign here to campaign for economic justice and demand criminal prosecution of fraudulent bankers NOW.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)