Venables Prejudged: A government cover-up

Could Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, be involved in a gigantic cover-up? If so, he's going down... and not just in the eyes of the voter.

TheBigRetort has uncovered evidence which may suggest that the recent furore over the new identity of Jon Venables may be designed solely to conceal the possibility that he has ALREADY been convicted. of a serious offence involving children long before it was announced.

Just think it through for a minute....

Venables is amongst one of four people in Britain protected by what are termed ‘Mary Bell’ injunctions.

Bell was convicted of the manslaughter of two boys in 1968 and given anonymity after her release.

The recipients receive lifetime protection of their real identities.

It was recently reported in the Daily Mail that a ‘tight-knit group alone knows the new identity of Jon Venables. It operates in a culture of ‘extreme secrecy’, so even the arresting officers may not have known who they had in their cells. However, theBigRetort believes that fears that the recall could see Venables’ new identity being discovered and his life threatened because of fellow prisoners' suspicions about special treatment, is purely a smokescreen – designed to assist the Government in a gigantic cover-up.

What if Jon Venables has in fact ALREADY been tried and convicted under his new alias? What if he was ALREADY languishing inside a British prison when he was in fact ‘recalled under licence’ by a Justice Minister eager to catch up with a forgotten man?

Thought police aside, as our old mother would say, if true... it is quite an elaborate charade.

Could it be that Justice Minister Jack Straw, along with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hopes that a smokescreen of excessive secrecy surrounding the ‘recent arrest’ will buy the Labour government time?

Once it discovered Venables conviction (not arrest) it must have quickly moved to close down the ever watchful media.

If the serious allegations against Mr Venables can be dealt with AFTER a General Election it is highly likely that a voter backlash can be avoided, and Labour may be left to increase the secrecy once more.

Be that as it may (or may not) be...

It is likely that, if an arrest and conviction did take place - long before the Government announcement - the Government itself may not have known until after the new conviction was sealed: due to the excessive secrecy the Government imposed on Venables' new identity in the first place.

Confused?... you should be.

This would indicate serious failings within the probation service itself and with the government’s obsession in doling out new identities to violent offenders in search of a new life.

But, is it an obsession which allows Government to hoodwink the British public and justice too?

The questions that must be answered before a General Election...

Venables was already in prison LONG before he was recalled under licence… but why?

Why?

Coming soon in theBigRetort... secrets, lies, and spin.

Deslandes: The Police and Black-on-Black Crime

The Sun newspaper and Operation Trident. TheBigRetort discovers the (black) gangland shootout that never was.

On the 1st January 2010, at approximately 5am, following a New Year’s celebration at a family owned pub, Darren Deslandes, a 34-year old housing officer, was shot dead by a black assailant. (His younger brother “junior” still lays critically injured in hospital fighting for life.) "Wild West-style shootout,” the Sun proclaimed in bold writing, with the usual nodding unspoken emphasis to the scum involved. [Sun report, since removed, http://tinyurl.com/yjb82y4.] Or so a lazy staff reporter intimated…

Far from being gun-wielding, drug dealing black street thugs, Darren Deslandes and his brother Junior were only armed with a good education and a loving family, one that had provided foster care for nine children. In fact Darren and Junior were (if anything) plucked out of the air by one piece of prima fascia 'evidence' that stands out on a three-pronged fork: they were black. And as a result guilty in the eyes of the law.

Apparently, hours into a new decade, the armed officers from the Met Police’s black-on-black gun crime task force Operation Trident were quickly on the scene. (Trident’s involvement may be found to be the root – should that be ‘route’? - of the later erroneous newspaper copy.) But the officers must have had their views coloured by what greeted them that night... A black assailant had fled the crime scene leaving Darren and Junior Deslandes dying from a hail of bullets. However, curiously, the two victims were immediately treated as “suspects” - a view supported by the Sun. But with one gun, and one single ‘assailant’, how could this be?

Surrounded by armed police, death and coma quickly stalked the Deslandes pair – along with that lazy journalist. The Sun informed its readership that one brother was dead and the other critical following the ‘gun battle’. [Emphasis added.] But with only one gun - and one perpetrator, who had fled the scene according to witnesses, how could there have been a 'gun battle'? The Sun also had “witnesses” (unnamed) who claimed they had actually seen the “two men” who "simply drew guns" (plural) and who “started firing at each other after a heated row”.

"These two guys just appeared in the street and started shooting at each other,” the Sun's witnesses negatively enthused. "God knows what it was about but it must have been serious if they thought the only way it could be settled was to shoot each other." [Emphasis to underline that no one knew what it was about or why they should shoot ‘each other’? And neither did the Sun.]

The Deslandes brothers had done no such thing. Darren died, Junior slipped into a coma, reputations tarnished, guilt etched on their black, bloodied bodies - and across the Sun newspaper too. How could this be was a question rightly asked.

However, the anger of the family and friends of the Deslandes brothers does not solely focus on the Sun’s reporting. It is rightly seeking both an apology and a correction for that. Remarkably however, it is claimed that the Operation Trident officers did not intervene to save the brothers due to what were termed, ‘health and safety issues’. They were denied medical attention for half an hour. Officers apparently blocked the ambulance crew from attending in case the pair was armed. One 13 year-old brother was taken into custody and questioned at length. According to a family friend, “They seemed eager to establish a drug or gangster link.”

But there was none.

In the Deslandes pub however the Sun newspaper was read and Operation Trident’s consent to police the streets - it polices London with what it terms ‘the consent of the black community’- was one that the family endorsed. But would the Deslandes brothers have been treated differently if Trident took a less three-pronged fork-tongued approach to what is a black-and-white certainty? Gone are the days when the police may investigate themselves.

David Cameron injects Botox: Official

In a remarkable hush-hush scoop TheBigRetort has discovered that David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, regularly injects Botox in his forehead. (Chuckle.)

The hope is that voters at the forthcoming general election will be hooked...?

In which case the Old Etonian Toff has ironed out the wrinkles on an otherwise furrowed brow and transformed 'hisself into the Peter Pan of British no-policy politics. (Or is that the Peter Pan of English Botox?)

Gordon Brown stop smiling on the way to the polls.

Immortality: secret uncorked

The secret to living a longer life, or just a load of plonk? TheBigRetort pulls the cork...

Scientists claim that sirtuins, proteins, become increasingly important as people age. It is these proteins that ensure which genes should be “off” - and thereby remain silent as the ageing process continues.

Paradoxically it is these same proteins that are believed to repair DNA damage as we age. The critical protein controls which genes are off and on as well as overseeing DNA repair - and there’s the rub. As we age, chromosomes get damaged and the SIR1 proteins are finally overwhelmed. It is this activity that leads to the process of aging, not time itself which moves on inexorably, unconcerned by birthdays and mankind his or herself.

But can the aging process itself be slowed?

Scientists are beginning to suspect so; mice with more SIRT1 proteins have the improved ability to repair their DNA and prevent the unwanted changes in genes.

Resveratrol extended the lifespan in mice by 24 to 46 percent.

Remarkably previous studies have shown that Resveratrol, a chemical found primarily in red wine, helps activate the SIRT1 protein. The chemical reduces the degenerative diseases associated with the aging process (such as Alzheimer’s), and certain cancers could also be treated.

Unfortunately researchers claim that it is too early for people to start taking Resveratrol, but a glass of red wine at dinner is recommended. The question is, will we get old drinking it?

The Large Hadron Collider: Is it safe?

A controversial experiment is planned to take place tomorrow that may signal THE END of the Earth. But could experiments like the controversial Large Hadron Collider (LHC) already have taken place? TheBigRetort investigates...and discovers that someone may have got the 'maths' wrong.

The LHC Safety Study Group studied the safety of the forthcoming experiment in 2003. It concluded that the planned experiments—there are a number of them--presented no danger.

The group focused on two phenomena, namely the possible production of microscopic black holes, the sort that suck you in and blow you out and create additional dimensions of space, which way is up?- and also postulated other exotic phenomena - the possible production of ‘strangelets', hypothetical pieces of matter. The LHC will reproduce, in the laboratory and under controlled conditions, collisions at centre-of-mass energies less than those reached in the atmosphere by some of the cosmic rays that have been bombarding the Earth for billions of years.

The ‘stability’ of these astronomical bodies indicates that such collisions cannot be dangerous.

The study also considered other hypothetical objects, vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles, and found ‘no associated risks’. Indeed, if anything like a microscopic black hole is produced at the LHC then it is expected to decay before it reaches the detector walls.

In the case of strangelets, their production in heavy-ion collisions will also present no danger.

In fact the LHC experiment is nothing new as far as nature is itself concerned. The energy created inside the accelerator is still far below those created in the Universe.

High-energy cosmic rays have bombarded the earth since its creation.

The LHC accelerator is designed to collide pairs of protons and pairs of lead nuclei. But their combined energies will still be far below those of the highest-energy cosmic-ray collisions that are observed regularly on Earth.

The LHC is designed to collide two counter-rotating beams of protons or heavy ions. When the LHC attains its design collision rate, it will produce about a billion proton-proton collisions per second in each of the major detectors. It will produce the equivalent of 116 days of collisions. So if the experiment where to run in this time frame, and they have got their sums wrong, life as we know it could all be over - in four months.

Fortunately nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth already – and the planet still exists.

It has also conducted the same experiment on the Sun about one billion times – and the Sun still exists. Moreover, our Milky Way galaxy contains countless stars with sizes similar to our Sun, and there are countless similar galaxies in the visible Universe. Cosmic rays have been hitting all these stars at rates similar to collisions with our own Sun. This means that Nature has already completed what the LHC sets out to do tomorrow - only more cheaply. But there is one slight fly in the ointment that the safety experts seemed to have missed, and it's cosmic. i

What we see of our solar system and the Milky Way Galaxy, plus the galaxies beyond is already history.In other words, if Nature,or some 'thing' else, has created a similar experiment, then we may not yet see the catastrophic results painted on to the backdrop of our night skies. In fact,the nearest star system at Alpha Centauri lies some 4. 2 light years away. In other words, if a black hole sucked it up yesterday we would not witness its disappearance until after the 2012 Olympics. A sobering thought.

Michael's Ashes: The response

Recently we delivered a startling account of the major failings of Eastbourne District General Hospital and its 'aftercare' treatment... of a dead man. Michael Morgan, 51, died in December last and was swiftly cremated on the instruction of hospital officials at 'EDGH': but without the family's knowledge. Following which, they asked for the ashes. Not much to ask given the circumstances one might think, however... it was a request that met with silence. Now, finally, the family has received a response, and it looks as if someone may have removed one of the branches of its family tree. An exclusive from TheBigRetort

In "Michael's Ashes" we highlighted the failings of East Sussex NHS Trust and its 'dead patient aftercare'... which was found to be a bit wanting.

When Michael Morgan died and his family discovered the death and cremation (nearly three months later and only via a chance encounter) Kim Hodgson, chief executive of East Sussex Trust, immediately went into emergency mode. She 'disowned' the family from the former patient claiming that it was not entitled to any further information about his treatment.

Kim Hodgson came to the job as chief executive amidst some controversy. We also saw huge parallels between the treatment of Michael's grieving family at the hands of seemingly uncaring bureaucrats to Ms Hodgson's own loss some time back of a pet dog called Blue.

The dog was stolen and (also) held to ransom and never returned. (We do not want to see that happen with Michael... Or his ashes at least.)

Various newspapers picked up on the piece which not only presented the family's plight but shone a light on East Sussex Trust itself. Following a series of catastrophic and sloppy blunders it failed to demonstrate its attempts to inform Michael's family of his death and later cremation.

Ms Hodgson is also responsible for the overall performance of the executive functions at East Sussex NHS Trust. The 'Accountable Officer', it is her job is to ensure that the Trust discharges its obligations such as patient care and aftercare -or so one might hope.

Instead, Ms Hodgson, presumably advised by expensive lawyers - at a considerable cost to the NHS - has previously ignored repeated requests by the family to hand over the ashes. So why the Dibben statement now?

Could it be the Healthcare Commission investigation? Or MP Joan Ruddock who has also taken an interest? Or the publicity? Whatever the reason, and the plot thickens day by day, if Michael's family had hoped to get a sympathetic ear - along with the answers in this sordid tale - it has now been quashed with Irene Dibben's response.

But Dibben's inability to follow her remit through 'effective communication' and also to 'appraise' her chief executive's actions should be noted.

In what must rank as a great understatement and salt-rubbing of wounds statement, Dibben wrote in her letter that she was aware that the response may cause the family 'further distress'.

Hello all brain cells! If it was a comedy they would be rolling in the aisles. But it's not, it's a tragedy.

So, cover up or cock up? You choose.

Coming soon in TheBigRetort.... We 'Deep Clean' East Sussex NHS Trust.

Barack Obama: Why he should be president

As the child of a black man and white woman Barack Obama is often (simply) referred to as 'black'. A description that will one day serve to display a time of ignorance - because Barack Obama is much much more.

"There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America," Obama once wrote.

However, note in the above paragraph from his book The Audacity of Hope that there is no capital letter on black and white. In fact, neither is a nation, and neither is a culture. Obama, born between the two, has already made the journey and knows this. And, although many in the US have leaned heavily on 'skin' difference for quite some time this presidential candidate - if elected - would help a young nation recognise that any 'difference' between them is countered by that which unites: America.

Meanwhile, in 2008, a fledgling nation stands at the crossroads. A presidential candidate, born in the racial melting pot of Hawaii, with a half Indonesian sister, a brother in-law and niece of Chinese descent, with blood relatives who resemble Margaret Thatcher, and others who could pass for Bernie Mac?

America: you decide.

But before you do: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

GoDaddy: the Odd Bob or two, and the Clickfraud Scandal

Around the globe the words 'domain' and 'cash parking' are synonymous with GoDaddy. So why are 70% of the reviews on the first page of Google so negative? TheBigRetort investigates... and finds the odd Bob or two. (Pictured left, Bob Parsnips, founder GoDaddy.)

Google GoDaddy along with Cashparking and it quickly becomes evident that all is not well in Elsinore. (That's Denmark for all our American readers.) Indeed... the praise once heaped on the largest domain name registrar in the world has now turned to opprobrium. There is a pestilence in the land and many a brave knight quickly stirs abroad, to other domains. (Oops. We quote a writer of plays born over here.) What we mean is, here's just one of many critiques...

"I like GoDaddy.com and I admire Bob Parsons, his 'bigger than life' personality and panache reflecting on GoDaddy, so it’s not personal, it’s business," one disgruntled critic wrote. He had invested in the GoDaddy Cashparking scheme but when he saw the cash disappear he realised something was not quite right. He was concerned by the lack of 'plain words' in GoDaddy's terms of service, such as the 'other similar methods' in relation to what type of traffic GoDaddy 'allowed'. A definition that could accommodate virtually anything; and was meant to.

GoDaddy's pays out in three monthly cycles and this can lead to abuse of the cashparking system - by the registrar itself. In the above case several thousand dollars had accumulated but was destined to remain in GoDaddy's deep pockets. The advertising revenue was invalidated by GoDaddy - 'siezed'. Or so he alleged. His advice: avoid Godaddy Cash Parking.

But can uncertainty be part of a Bob Parsons masterplan to even greater wealth?

After all, Parsons can recall his war service years with such startling clarity - thirty years on - that such an accusation must fail to impress. Here's just a few snippets of what the founder of GoDaddy has posted about his 'days' in Vietnam.

"I can remember arriving on that hill in the middle of nowhere. The night prior, the squad I was newly assigned to had been ambushed and most of them were killed. It wasn’t that moment I got afraid. Later that night I sat on this wall of an old French fort and looked into this valley and thought – this is it…I’m going to die here and I accepted that and from then on I was OK.... From the next day on, my only goal and I mean my only goal, was to simply make it to mail call. I figured that I would take small steps, tie them together, and it would get me to the finish line and that thought is what I use today to make GODADDY successful – simply get to the next day."

So that's it, in a nutshell... Or is it?

Bob Parsons enlisted in the US Marine Corps in 1968. He arrived in Vietnam, in his words, 'by late February 1969'. However, Delta Company rosters record that "Parsons, Bob, R" commenced his tour of duty at the 1st January 1969 - seven weeks before the date he claims. 

On February 22, four Delta Co marines were indeed killed and six more wounded.

If the rosters are correct then the 5-week stint followed a rather inactive period for Delta Company: and for Bob.

The events are said to have influenced Bob's life forever. He was apparently later medically evacuated from Hill 190 after being wounded at Quang Nam - in the buttocks - five weeks after arriving there.  Or should that be five weeks after he claims he arrived there?

Bob Parsons is unlikely to screw up his dates so there is probably another explanation for the discrepancy. The Delta Co. Marines killed in the vicinity of Hill 190 that day were, Woodrow W. Adams; LCpl. Michael Cruse; Cpl. Edward Gum and Cpl. Robert W. Topham, Jr. See "History of Delta 1/26" by Tom Howard at delta126.org for a full account. The Command Chronologies of 1st Battalion 26th Marines date from August 1966 to March 1970. [They are not available for the month that Parsons claims he was there.]

But TheBigRetort ventures too far into the enemy's paddy fields, on what is essentially a dark night, so back to domain basics.

TheBigRetort's first article in the GoDaddy Series was last seen comfortably sitting on the second page of Google, which is not too bad for a tiny English blog more accustomed to rocking the boat in Dear Old Blighty than across the Pond in the Americas (where it is also read).

But now, according to a recent Google search, it is almost rubbing shoulders with GoDaddy itself.

No mean feat...

In the words of SEO guru David Viney in his book Get to the top on Google:

"84% of searchers never make it past the bottom of page two of search engine results. Just think about this for a moment. Imagine the web is one giant city, with stores scattered through it. Having your site in the top 10 is like having your store right on Main Street or near the entrance of the largest shopping mall in human history. Being outside the top 20 is like having a corner store on the outskirts of town."

But first, a gentle reminder from our sponsor...

Our previous expose revealed that GoDaddy founder B-O-B  P-A-R-S-O-N-S (the marine with the ring) pocketed $1.6 million in advertising revenue from parked pages - it beats working for a living - and many of the domains belonged to people who had purchased them from the Baltimore Bully himself. 

GoDaddy offered the opportunity for one and all to share in its revenue success via its new CashParking scheme - at a price, naturally.  TheBigRetort snook a little look at what Daddy was up to: and was not that impressed.

"Earn up to 80% of ad revenue" boasted its CashParking Plan. GoDaddy keeps the other 20%. Oh, and don't forget... you must also pay for the right to use the CashParking plan too.  Does the phrase MONEY FOR OLD DOMAINS spring to mind?

When TheBigRetort invested in the scheme the revenue generated from its rather sizeable portfolio remained no more than a trickle. And what cash did come our way suddenly - and inexplicably - disappeared. The domains had done a Houdini. Alongside approximately $20 that also vanished from the CashParking account. We decided to find out what had happened.

It usually takes GoDaddy's Sales & Support team 24 hours to respond to queries - even though the company boasts a '24/7' 'support, getting anwers from its media office and the 'Office of the President' were equally problematic, and 'vague'. We wondered if the PR department at GoDaddy was working overtime to 'bury' a certain story that had been hovering on Google's page two... until it moved up the Google ranks. (It's now in the top ten.)

To recap... GoDaddy previously accrued $1.6 million in advertising revenue from 'parked' domains: for itself.  It did not share this revenue with its customers. TheBigRetort wanted a few nuggets of wisdom from Bob Parsons himself. We wanted to know if any other customers were as lucky as he.

We also wanted to know what had happened to two domains and $20; GoDaddy initially claimed that the two domains were 'both correctly pointing' at its cash parking nameservers; only to add later 'But the domain names are set up to forward to external URLs. In order for these domains to properly resolve to the cash parking account, the forwarding will need to be removed.'

Double-Dutch. However, when GoDaddy then responded (eventually) that this was not in fact the real problem we wondered if we could smell 'vagueness'.

The two domains it transpired had been completely removed. GoDaddy was suddenly threatening to close down 'the entire' Cash Parking account. It explained why: "These determinations are not made based on the amount of traffic that comes to your domains. The amount of impressions to your domain(s) is not a determining factor by GoDaddy or Google. It is not permitted for you to routinely click on your own links in the Cash Parking system."

'Routinely click'? 'On our own links'? Apparently CashParking is designed to share the revenue generated on domains based on (i) Accidental Traffic; mistypes, etc., or, (ii) Residual Traffic; domains that have undergone a change of ownership. This usually happens when a registrant forgets to renew, and then the person who lifts the domain steals his traffic; which is a rather astonishing and immoral concept.

GoDaddy was confidently stating that it was okay to earn money out of other people making typing errors - accidental traffic - or by 'passing off' as the longstanding owner of a previous site.

Although many punters believe that the 'residual' traffic becomes theirs by default this is not always the case. Some purchasers suddenly encounter empty space with no old links to the domain name.

Surprisingly, with the above lofty ideal, GoDaddy Cash Parking does not allow the intentional generation of traffic to any of your domains via a link for instance (even with a warning) - so there appears to be very little way of gaining any income from the cash parking scheme. Something GoDaddy does not immediately point out at the point of purchase. (It's buried somewhere in its terms and conditions; the small print.)

Indeed TheBigRetort has so far concluded that much of GoDaddy's cashparking 'revenue' is based on the naivety of the purchaser (its customers), and is also  one-sided.

Conveniently allegations of clickfraud, often unsubstantiated, lead to expulsion; with retention by GODADDY of the revenue raised.

But what domains had been 'routinely clicked' in our portfolio and by whom?

"The most common problem leading to a determination such as this is the Click Through Rate (CTR), or the percentage of clicks vs. total impressions to your domain. This is a fairly accurate way to determine if the behavior of the impressions to your domain is consistent with what Google would determine as "natural behavior". We find that natural human traffic will result in Click Through Rates (CTR) of no more than 40% on sites with more than 1 or 2 visitors. CTR's significantly or consistently higher than that are usually indicative of incentivized clicks, click groups, or software programs designed to simulate click traffic."

What 'click groups'? Could we see a report?

"We are unable to provide full reports on the statistics that caused these traffic patterns. Unnatural traffic is defined as traffic that any given domain may see when not advertised, or targeted. Normal traffic does not generally cause the amounts of traffic we see on your domain name, thus is considered to be unnatural and provoked. Residual Traffic tends to taper off after a period of time where as incidental traffic traditionally does not have high click through rates. In this instance the domain does not fit into either category as the traffic appears to be steady and excessively high."

Twenty dollars...?

According to GoDaddy rival competitors can also click on a competitors ads in order to undermine his or her campaign and exhaust their budget.

In addition, you may not generate traffic to your website or Go Daddy's links by any 'listings on newsgroups, bulk e-mailing, icq postings, chatroom postings, iframes, zero pixel frames, hitbots, clickbots, spiders, cgi-scripts, JavaScript, click farms or any other similar method'.

So, no advertising at all - which means no BIG bucks.

"This includes clicking on your own links. As a result, your Cash Parking service has been permanently suspended. Our regulations are in line with those of Google. As Google will not be providing revenue to us for what has been deemed to be unnatural traffic, we will not have any revenue to share with you."

But hadn't Google already paid GoDaddy a bundle of cash?

We attempted to open a dialogue with Bob Parsons, ex-marine, founder of Godaddy and its chairman. We wanted to know how he managed to make $1.6 million from cashparking... and we also wanted a copy of the report in order that we could conduct our own investigation into the 'click fraud scandal'. But it wasn't that easy. GODADDY responded:

"Please be aware that our founder and CEO, Mr. Parsons, is extremely busy with his vast array of duties and thus is not able to personally reply to emails sent to our office given the amount of correspondence. As you may already know our President and COO is Mr. Adelman. Mr. Adelman reviews all messages delivered to this address; due to the volume he is unable to reply personally. However, at his discretion he may opt to do so or add to the comments of our office." It added, "Unfortunately for security purposes we cannot discuss the methods used to monitor this traffic, and this includes the information found on the domain names in question."

Sent to Guantanamo; without trial. Beaten by the 'evidence'. The GoDaddy jury had finally reached its verdict; however vague. Meanwhile, in the Cashparking pages themselves, the message could not have been more clear: "Domains not allowed due to fraudulent activity".

 

 

Coming soon... TheBigRetort.com

GoDaddy, Cashparking, and Click fraud...The Big Retort

GoDaddy is the largest domain name registrar in the 'electric universe'. During the final six months of 2005 approximately one-third of all domain names (the top five) were registered via this registrar. By the end of May 2006, it managed approximately 14.2 million domain names. As a 'best-of-breed' it is also North America’s largest shared website hosting provider. But when TheBigRetort tried to put a series of questions to its founder it met with a wall of silence - unusual considering its founder's usual retort: "If GoDaddy.com is anything, it is an outspoken company and I am an outspoken CEO." So why was Daddy being so evasive? First, a bit of blurb on founder B-o-b P-a-r-s-o-n-s.

Robert Parsons is the CEO and Chairman of GoDaddy. Prior to founding the company in 1997, he also founded Parsons technology. Bob and his then wife grew the software company out a basement kitchen. A decade later the pair sold it for many millions of dollars. Retirement did not sit well... Bob soon turned his attention to domain name registration. He had noted how expensive it was... And the entrepreneur was if anything the archangel of the low priced deal. He founded GoDaddy - a name that came out of the aether - and quickly established him (through dogged determination and chutzpah it must be acknowledged) as the Wizard of cut-price domains. At the age 19 he was a rifleman in the U.S. Marine Corps (1968 - 1970) and the recipient of several medals. He is also a Certified Public Accountant. He remains the titular head of GoDaddy. He and also wears an earring. He likes bikes as much as girls. (Godaddy girls that is. And if you saw them you would understand why.) But, to the nub of our Go Daddy rub...
......

In 2006 it was reported that GoDaddy planned to go public. Lehman Brothers was hired to handle the IPO. Prior to that date not much was known about the company's profitability. Go Daddy was a private company and its business was its business, however the S-1 filing was the first public scrutiny of its financial health... it revealed considerable net losses. With the books out in the open it became public knowledge that this had happened every year since the year of its inception. Under "Risks related to our Business" the filing also stated, '.... and may not be able to operate profitably or sustain positive cash flow in future periods.' As investors in GoDaddy's success, it was this that concerned us most. There were others...

GoDaddy planned to use the net proceeds received from the offering to repay approximately $7.2 million indebtedness (in addition to working capital etc). However, although the company was making year on year losses, it was, its founder later emphasised, also experiencing rapid growth.

At that time many wondered if Parsons himself might 'subdue his expressions' once the company went public. "He's one of the most outspoken CEOs in the industry, whose personal and professional leanings are never in doubt. That sort of divisive, outspoken approach may not gel quite as well with Wall Street investment bankers as it does with his blog audience," one online critic remarked. The offering hoped to raise more than 100 million dollars and value Go Daddy at 250 million dollars or more. But the IPO was abruptly pulled.

Dominic Jones later reported that a scrapped IPO is rarely a good thing. "It suggests the company being shopped is a lemon. Companies that pull their IPOs traditionally go off to some dark corner with their tails between their legs ... many observers might well have interpreted the news as Wall Street kicking another dog out to the curb."

However Parsons was never one for hiding in dark corners. (Unless it was in the rice fields of Nam, where it was thought wise to adopt such a position.) He later blogged that the submission was 'approved' by the SEC itself and that this assumption was wrong. There were three main reasons that he decided to pull the plug; (i) the Middle East conflict, interest rate jitters and tech stock weakness; (ii) lack of appreciation for GoDaddy’s cash generating power and, calling the financial media stupid, because none had studied the company's cash flow statements, he claimed (iii) that Daddy was not desperate and had generated significant operating cash flow during each reporting period.

Surprisingly Parsons claims that the submission had been 'approved' by the SEC. However, the S1 actually states: 'Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities regulator has approved or disapproved these securities or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete.'

Oh Daddy... Bob may not realise it but any representation that suggests otherwise is actually 'criminal' and may make any claimant subject to a long stay at Guantanamo. (Mind you, as this is place he apparently approves of it may be most welcome.)

And that brings us to Cashparking...
.....

"EARN UP TO 80% REVENUE" "CASH PARKING - TURN YOUR PARKED DOMAINS INTO CASH"

According to the GoDaddy blurb it's easy with CashParking. 'Whether you have one domain or a growing portfolio, CashParking can turn those domains into a cash generator!' The offer is made via a number of Cashparking plans from which anyone buying a domain can

'get ready to share in parked domain revenue'. Really?

Bob Parsons himself, blind to any faults, directly boasts, ''Go Daddy is putting its reputation in the domain name industry to work for our customers so CashParking can provide the highest revenue share payouts, making for quick and easy income potential for domain holders from their parked domain names.'' Which leads to another... really?

GoDaddy itself earned $1.6 million from its own cashparking 'scheme'. But this was prior to sharing it with the persons who owned those domains. Now things are different and B-o-b wants to share his success... So why is it that when TheBigRetort invested in a portfolio of domains 'connoting the top five' we saw the dollars flooding out - not in? (In place of the two domains, TheBaseRate.com and LoanAiduk.com, was a little Sherlock Holmes sign, complete with magnifying glass, saying: This site is currently NOT available. (Emphasis GoDaddy's.)

What oh what had taken place? We wrote to find out....

Coming soon in TheBigRetort... the answer. (Visit NamePros for domain discussion and advice. NoDaddy.com for informed views on the company.)



.....

Sofa not so suite

TheBigRetort can reveal that a recent allergic epidemic that has been studied in Lahti, Finland, has found that being a dog - or a couch potato for that matter -may seriously damage your health. In fact, if that sofa has been made in China reclining in front of the telly may not be so 'suite'.

A Finnish study into the background to a recent epidemic that stretched the length and breadth of Britain has identified the substance that has caused agonising suffering in thousands of people. Chinese-made settees sold by Argos and Land of Leather have been named as the culprits of a violent irritant-related eczema, blisters, weeping and cracking.

After studying five patients the Finnish study concluded that the allergies related to a newly purchased chair or sofa. Furniture samples were analysed and compounds identified using a mass spectrum library and measured. The patients showed strong reactions to upholstery fabric samples and to dimethylfumarate, 'down to a level of 1 p.p.m. in the most severe case'.

Scientists concluded that the cause of the epidemic was likely to be contact allergy to the dimethylfumarate, a novel potent contact sensitiser. All sofas were traced to the same factory owned by Chinese firm 'Linkwise'. Apparently it had treated the furniture with 'a potent fungicide' to stop them going mouldy in storage. Customers have now been warned of the batch numbers affected with what is now termed "sofa dermatitis" over one year after the first outbreak.

So where was Trading Standards in all this?

A number of personal injury lawyers are currently trawling the Net in search of clients. In Wrexham a woman who purchased a brown Bari sofa from Argos was left with a severe rash to her buttocks. In another regions one victim came out with an allergic reaction; shortly after purchasing the sofa in May 2007 his symptoms included a painful rash on his back, thigh and hands. 'The distribution of his eczema coinciding with where he would sit at the end of the sofa.' A doctor later concluded that it was due to 'sofa dermatitis'.

Meanwhile 'Answers at Yahoo' suggested to a concerned pet owner that a 7-year old Yorkie was 'most likely having an allergic reaction to something she rubbed her face on outside.' But the dog (not pictured) may have identified the source of the epidemic some time back...

It developed a red rash like look around both eyes and face like a chemical burn. The dog's eyes were swollen and the skin around them bright pink. Although it was claimed by the dog's owner that the dog developed the symptoms after being out alone in the yard for just a few hours, its concerned owner informed Answers that it would later 'rub her face against the settee'. It now seems likely that the crafty canine was trying to tell its owner that the sofa was the cause of its irritation.
.....

When informed by the TheBigRetort that the source of the epidemic had finally been identified - almost a year after it began - the dog is alleged to have barked, 'Fang heavens.'

64.233.183.104 MP3

Have we entered an episode of Lost? Or are we simply that popular a publication that major conglomerates wish to cosy-up with we pond life? If so, perhaps it's time we started practising safer sex. Because when TheBigRetort gets rogered we prefer a condom and a smile, rather than a dot.con.

Why is it that practically every article we write appears to carry advertising for "MP3" and the ISP "64.233.183.104"? Complaints to "fronts" like PrivacyProtect.org (ON WHOM MORE LATER) - appear to go ignored. (This 'organisation' itself is shrouded in mystery.) And we are simply referred back to our domain name registrar where we are offered privacy... but at a price. In other words you pay we stop. Suspicious or what?

However, phew, UK law ensures that privacy does not have a dollar sign attached to it. In other words private details should, as far as human rights go, remain just that: p-r-i-v-a-t-e. So why is it that the registrants of domain names need to pay their registrars for that privacy? (Odd that, innit?)

However, we stroll too far down the path of righteousness. Privacy is not the thrust of our concerns. In our case a number of copyright articles are repeatedly hijacked by a person or persons selling MP3 and, although the headlines and body of the front text can be read, there is no story on the landing page, no link that acknowledges the fabulous BIGRETORT, just an MP3 'endorsement' - of sorts.

We say of sorts because it's downright dodgy. Certainly TheBigRetort would never endorse a product like MP3, or such an underhanded way of marketing it.

We conclude that this is obviously a dreadful product best avoided, peddled by a company that has little regard for copyright law or fair play - and one that needs its identity shield lifted.

In the forthcoming months we will be researching these cyber bloodsuckers and identity shield fronts... and lift the veil.