The sad suicide of PC David Rathband highlights once again the poor way in which we treat those who are injured while protecting us from terrorists, criminals and just waste of space losers like Raoul Moat.
Moat shot PC Rathband as the policeman sat in his patrol car. PC Rathband survived the murder attempt but lost his sight.
He found it increasingly difficult to cope and his wife leaving him added to his strain and torment. Finally, this week PC Rathband hanged himself.
His death is reminiscent of that of PC Philip Olds. The 29-year-old-traffic policeman had challenged Stuart Blackstock and an accomplice after a failed off licence raid in Hayes, Middlesex, in December 1980. Blackstock shot PC Olds shattering his spine, leaving him paralysed. Blackstock, a Hell's Angel who had a long criminal record, was cleared of attempted murder but jailed for life for wounding with intent to resist arrest
PC Olds was unable to come to terms with his disability and killed himself with a drugs overdose in 1986. Unbelievably, Blackstock was given £7,000 compensation after his prison status review was delayed. The European Court (who else?) found the 22-month wait for a decision on his prisoner category caused "anxiety" to Blackstock.
It is a similar story when it comes to soldiers coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq with limbs missing. They are poorly treated when they should get the best of care.
The treatment of injured public servants is a national disgrace.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The mysterious world of Facebook finance
The news, or rumour, that Facebook is about go public with an IPO started me wondering again. Where does its money come from?
I am still puzzled as to how Facebook is worth $100billion - or whatever the latest figure appears to be. Where does the revenue come from? Advertising? I had a Facebook account for a while and only once clicked on an ad. I have asked others with accounts if they click on the ads. No one has admitted to doing so. Obviously, my "research" is only empiric but of replicated nationwide would seem to infer that the number of ad clicks is not great. Additionally, the email account I used for Facebook (not my main address) has not been bombarded with spam relating to the subject of the one ad link that I did click - photography, in case you are interested - so Facebook is not selling email addresses.
So where does the revenue come from? Facebook is, at least in the UK, not allowed to sell the information its users input. Similarly, it cannot use the millions of uploaded photographs for commercial reasons so that is not a source of income.
Facebook doesn't sell email addresses; it doesn't appear to use the information or photographs stored on its servers. Despite the occasional rumour that it is going to start charging for use, it boasts that Facebook is free and always will be. A number of large companies ask us to become "fans" on Facebook so does Facebook charge companies for their pages? Even if it does (and I doubt it does) that cannot bring in that large a sum. Apart from raising their profile what good would it do for those companies? Does Coca-Cola or McDonald's, for example, need to raise their profile via Facebook? So, that's not where the money comes from.
Facebook appears to be the latest example of a dotcom company that is valued far beyond its true worth. Remember the 90s? Remember all the people who invested in dotcom companies and then got horribly burned when the bubble burst? I fear the same thing will happen to anyone who invests in Facebook shares, that is, of course, if Facebook does issue an IPO - and, of course, there is no guarantee that it will.
I am still puzzled as to how Facebook is worth $100billion - or whatever the latest figure appears to be. Where does the revenue come from? Advertising? I had a Facebook account for a while and only once clicked on an ad. I have asked others with accounts if they click on the ads. No one has admitted to doing so. Obviously, my "research" is only empiric but of replicated nationwide would seem to infer that the number of ad clicks is not great. Additionally, the email account I used for Facebook (not my main address) has not been bombarded with spam relating to the subject of the one ad link that I did click - photography, in case you are interested - so Facebook is not selling email addresses.
So where does the revenue come from? Facebook is, at least in the UK, not allowed to sell the information its users input. Similarly, it cannot use the millions of uploaded photographs for commercial reasons so that is not a source of income.
Facebook doesn't sell email addresses; it doesn't appear to use the information or photographs stored on its servers. Despite the occasional rumour that it is going to start charging for use, it boasts that Facebook is free and always will be. A number of large companies ask us to become "fans" on Facebook so does Facebook charge companies for their pages? Even if it does (and I doubt it does) that cannot bring in that large a sum. Apart from raising their profile what good would it do for those companies? Does Coca-Cola or McDonald's, for example, need to raise their profile via Facebook? So, that's not where the money comes from.
Facebook appears to be the latest example of a dotcom company that is valued far beyond its true worth. Remember the 90s? Remember all the people who invested in dotcom companies and then got horribly burned when the bubble burst? I fear the same thing will happen to anyone who invests in Facebook shares, that is, of course, if Facebook does issue an IPO - and, of course, there is no guarantee that it will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)