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'"

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The only reason Gao Xingjian no longer has Chinese citizenship is that his citizenship was revoked by the Chinese government after it expelled him from the country.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 Since Gao's citizenship was revoked precisely because of his writing, what is actually meant by "Mo is the first Chinese writer to win the prize" is "Mo is the first Chinese writer to win who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.

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.