3 ms·

I read Murray's article and the FT article. I don't see: (a) any disagreement between FT and Murray on basic facts (b) any overtly conspiratorial thin

I read Murray's article and the FT article. I don't see: (a) any disagreement between FT and Murray on basic facts (b) any overtly conspiratorial thinking from Murray (c) any clear reason to give deference to FT, or (d) any justification for labeling Murray's article as "absolute nonsense primary "research"". I do see: (e) a few concrete criticisms of Murray's article, and (f) a few concrete criticisms of FT's article. FT in agreement with Murray, via non-AMP link[1]: > However, the process has been criticised for awarding large sums of taxpayer money to several companies that appear to have no record in supplying PPE and have small balance sheets or poor recent financial performance. It has prompted concern over the extent of due diligence that was conducted before the contract awards. […] > So far the government has published about 80 of the PPE contracts. The largest was a £252.5m contract awarded to Ayanda Capital, a family investment firm that specialises in “currency trading, offshore property, private equity and trade financing”, according to its website. […] > When contacted by the FT, Ayanda said it was a UK limited company that paid UK taxes and was “happy to confirm that the contract has been successfully fulfilled”. Possible criticisms of Murray's article: 1. Loginwalled and dead links. 2. Speculation about the pricing of intangible assets under Ayanda Capital's management. 3. Over-narrow emphasis on the one Ayanda contract. 4. Opaque, charged title Loginwalled links: he links to Wealth Manager magazine, which is loginwalled (but not paywalled). This is not terribly worthy of criticism if that's the best source for this story. I have not read the Wealth Manager article. Dead links: he also links directly to objects in an s3 bucket with expired access tokens. Those are from the UK govt's Companies House. Not too hard to get fresh links.[2][3] Speculation: Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct relevance. Bundling conjecture is a bit much. But only a bit. He qualifies this passage well enough. Narrow focus: This contract is the largest one. Murray claims it is symptomatic of a failing of the UK govt. So focusing on the one contract doesn't stick out as particularly conspiratorial. Title: The former criticism (opaque title) is an ok one but the latter (charged title) isn't. ____________________ [1]: https://www.ft.com/content/c0d439c8-18ac-499b-8115-da2bc0f18567 https://www.ft.com/content/c0d439c8-18ac-499b-8115-da2bc0f18... [2a]: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11014884/filing-history https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11014884/filing-h... > Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 December 2019 > View PDF [2b]: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11014884/filing-history https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11014884/filing-h... > Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 December 2018 > View PDF [3a]: https://files.catbox.moe/234hjx.pdf https://files.catbox.moe/234hjx.pdf [3b]: https://files.catbox.moe/c92j8e.pdf https://files.catbox.moe/c92j8e.pdf

JoeSmithson 6y ago
The section I labelled as nonsense research was the stuff about the £2m. What is the relevance of that? This section is the only thing that CM has added, and he has missed all of the other firms that are covered in the FT article. This article is not his worst offending (that would probably be his ludicrous claims regarding the Skripal poisonings) but it is HN policy to replace articles with more substantive and less emotive ones if possible.
- jcahill 6y ago
  > The section I labelled as nonsense research was the stuff about the £2m. What is the relevance of that? >> Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct relevance. > This article is not his worst offending Your attitude toward the author isn't a critique of the article, which is short and easily verifiable in its claims. Having preexisting beef is not a useful source criticism when the facts are so easy to check. > but it is HN policy to replace articles with more substantive and less emotive ones if possible. The FT article is not more substantive wrt the Ayanda Capital deal.
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    > "Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct relevance." Could you explain the relevance...? > "The FT article is not more substantive wrt the Ayanda Capital deal." Firstly, it is, because it includes a response from Ayanda, which is a basic principle of journalism. Secondly, my entire point is that focusing on this one company is the problem. Anyway I don't want to argue this any more, the mods can make up their own mind with regards to which article is better and switch if they feel it is appropriate.

JoeSmithson 6y ago

The section I labelled as nonsense research was the stuff about the £2m. What is the relevance of that? This section is the only thing that CM has added, and he has missed all of the other firms that are covered in the FT article. This article is not his worst offending (that would probably be his ludicrous claims regarding the Skripal poisonings) but it is HN policy to replace articles with more substantive and less emotive ones if possible.

jcahill 6y ago
> The section I labelled as nonsense research was the stuff about the £2m. What is the relevance of that? >> Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct relevance. > This article is not his worst offending Your attitude toward the author isn't a critique of the article, which is short and easily verifiable in its claims. Having preexisting beef is not a useful source criticism when the facts are so easy to check. > but it is HN policy to replace articles with more substantive and less emotive ones if possible. The FT article is not more substantive wrt the Ayanda Capital deal.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  > "Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct relevance." Could you explain the relevance...? > "The FT article is not more substantive wrt the Ayanda Capital deal." Firstly, it is, because it includes a response from Ayanda, which is a basic principle of journalism. Secondly, my entire point is that focusing on this one company is the problem. Anyway I don't want to argue this any more, the mods can make up their own mind with regards to which article is better and switch if they feel it is appropriate.