Talk:Tiny Rowland/Archives/2013

Spiv
He was named "Tiny" by his mother not by a nanny. Read the Tom Bower biography which states it came from his mother. His family wasn't wealthy enough to afford a nanny.

This individual was notoriously unscrupulous throughout his career yet this article touches on none of this, it's essentially a fan letter in it's current state. A controversy/criticism section is required, at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.78.169 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please specify what you believe is absent, or add it yourself, or provide references to allow others to do so. I have removed the tags. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? that's not how things work. Please review the following and adhere to guidelines before removing notices that are perfectly legitimate: Original Research Citing sources NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semitransgenic (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should not have removed the 'Unreferenced' tag. Please add specific comments regarding the POV and 'Original research' tags. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing inherently wrong with the article. It appears to provide basic facts which can be verified by other sources. Personal opinions and commentary have no place in a biography. Chris Randall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.130.194.133 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have removed the tags. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I myself see nothing unusual or biased about the article. Perhaps those seeing OR and bias could take the trouble to explain where and in which direction. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * uncited material qualifies as WP:OR. This is an unbalanced article as it mentions nothing of Lonrho's unscrupulous post-colonial dealings in Africa - a company that at one time held  1 million acres of Rhodesian land and substantial concessions, sugar and tea plantations in Malawi, textile mills in the Ivory Coast, newspapers, copper mines and breweries in Zambia, coal, platinum and copper mines in South Africa, and the continent's largest auto dealership (selling, in addition to Mercedes, Ford and Toyota cars). The company [then] diversified far beyond Africa, employing 100,000 people in 600 subsidiaries in 43 countries. Nothing of the Fayed affair either (detail). Currently the item verges on hagiography. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Put some 'fact' tags in then. The word 'ruthless' appears several times, unacceptable face of capitalism, affair with someone's wife - an odd sort of hagiography. Fayed is mentioned. (As I have made 3 edits in toto to this article the 3RR allegation is ludicrous, unless I am being further accused of being Crosbiesmith.) Anyway I disagree with you and support the removal of these unsightly POV tags. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * unsightliness is not a reason to remove banners. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Semitransgenic - You have not given any examples of Rowland's unscrupulous dealings.  The Fayed affair is briefly mentioned.  You have not given any other examples of missing material.  You have not demonstrated that the article is unbalanced.  If you do not do so I will removed the 'inaccurate or unbalanced' tag. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Of the many multinationals headquartered in the City of London none appears to have attracted such widespread attention and its activities the subject of intense debates in the print media as Lonrho (the London and Rhodesian Mining and Land Company). In 1973 the company's internal dissensions led to a boardroom row which was fought out in the courts of London. In the course of this litigation, the public was treated to a rare display of what Prime Minister Heath graphically described as "the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism." The storm raised by the boardroom row had hardly quieted down when Lonrho was involved in yet another headline crisis following its appointment as oil consultant for the Organization of African Unity. So controversial was this appointment that it not only eroded the organization's credibility but forced the resignation of its administrative secretary- general, Mr. Nzo Ekangaki. Because its activities have been so highly politicized and widely publicized, any study of Lonrho makes good reading.
 * Suzanne Cronje and her collaborators have written a very fascinating and detailed account of the history and workings of Lonrho. They trace its rise from a modest ranching and mining concern based in provincial Rhodesia to a giant multinational corporation - over 500 subsidiaries employing close to 90,000 workers world- wide - with major operations all over Africa. The story of Lonrho is also a quasi-biography of Tiny Rowlands, the company's flamboyant executive director. The central thrust of the book is the contradiction arising from Lonrho's activities in Africa. On the one hand, the company is substantially involved in the white southern tip and the same time it feigns sympathy for black nationalist aspirations as well as unflagging interest in black African development. The authors succeed through meticulous documentation in unmasking Lonrho's janus face which smiles benignly across the black-white divide.
 * Considerable space is devoted to Lonrho's white southern African operations and how these have remained in force even at the height of black African demands that they be withdrawn. In the case of Rhodesia, the authors point out, the unilateral declaration of independence by Ian Smith did not dampen Lonrho's enthusiasm to do business there. As a matter of fact, Lonrho's operations underwent considerable expansion during the years following UDI and for good reason. These operations accounted for over one quarter of the company's pre-tax profits. Although, the group's white southern African connections, whenever these were exposed in the press, proved to be a source of embarrassment in Lonrho's dealings with independent black Africa; surprisingly official pronouncements from black Africa habitually denied their existence or intentionally downplayed their importance. The reasons are not hard to find when one examines Lonrho's wide ranging network of operations in black Africa and how these came about in the first place.
 * To begin with, Lonrho has perfected a strategy for penetrating black Africa by gaining influence with important political groups or well-connected elites as a step towards establishing a beachhead for the company. As a result, not only is Rowlands an eminence grise in these host countries but his group has close relatives of black African leaders sitting on its various boards as well as officials with portfolio. A parallel strategy for penetrating involves the acquisition of existing businesses, e.g., John Holt of Nigeria, Ashanti Goldfields in Ghana and David Whitehead in Malawi, as a means of further securing the company's interests. Thanks largely to these strategies the vast bulk of Lonrho's profits come from Africa. The company's black African operations have been concentrated in sensitive areas of the host country's economy - extractive industries (Ghana), transportation (Malawi railways), agribusiness (e.g., sugar plantations in Swaziland which employ one fifth of the country's work force and remain its most important foreign earner) and media (major newspapers in Kenya, Zambia and, at one time, Tanzania) - raising once again the ugly spectre of multinational neo-imperialism. It is this heavy involvement in the commanding heights of the economy that accounts for Lonrho's immense influence in black Africa and probably explains its survival in spite of the aforementioned contradiction.


 * The 1976 DTI Report: The Hayman/Slimmings report of 1976 led to certain Lonrho practices being dubbed the "unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism" and was notable in that it laid bare Mr Rowland's methods of doing business, with an emphasis on corruption and personal enrichment at his company's expense.Having been prompted by the events of the last two years to study the report in depth, it surprises us greatly that criminal prosecutions were not brought. It may be noteworthy that the investigating officer in the Fraud Squad, Chief Superintendent Etheridge, should have subsequently joined Lonrho as Chief Security Officer at a salary greatly in excess of that paid to the average main board director. The writer is concerned that the report disclosed clear prima facie breaches of the criminal law and yet no action was taken.


 * The Amethyst Case: Consistent with many of the events uncovered by Hayman and Slimmings is that set out in two Sunday Times articles of June, 1986 and one of 1 February 1987 (Appendix 15) relating to suspicious amethyst dealings. Complaints were lodged last summer with the City of London police but it is understood (Appendix 16) that the Law Officers decided that the DPP should not initiate an investigation. No reasons were given and it may well be a matter of public interest to initiate a private prosecution in respect of Mr Rowland's documented abuse of the criminal law.In the amethyst case, it is a matter of fact that the existence of two Lonrho subsidiaries in Liechtenstein, Blorg and Contango, was never disclosed as demanded by Section 3 of the Companies Act of 1967. This illegal non-disclosure is part of a complex pattern of concealment in the case and derivative suit has now been filed on behalf of the minority shareholders seeking an account in respect of the proceeds which run to millions of dollars. A copy of the writ is enclosed (Appendix 17). At some point Mr Rowland and his henchmen must brought to book for this matter and those uncovered in 1976.


 * Arms Dealing: Contrary to the protestations of Mr Rowland at the time of disclosure of his role in the US/Iran arms deal, Lonrho has previously been involved in arms dealing and one must question why Mr Rowland sought to mislead the press in this way (Appendices 18[53] and 19). Apart from the notorious Red Baron affair acknowledged by Mr Rowland's co-director, Robert Dunlop, the Lonrho subsidiary Tradewinds has been named as the carrier in deals whereby ex-CIA agent, Edwin P Wilson, shipped to Libya its weapons of terrorism. Wilson is presently serving 52 years in a US prison for his enterprise whilst, interestingly, a co-director in Tradewinds with Messrs Rowland, du Cann and Dunlop, from April 1981 to May 1983, was the head of Libyan "security", Ahmed el Gaddafadam, a cousin of Colonel Gaddafi.Until 1983, Lonrho's 40 per cent partner in Tradewinds was Ashraf Marwan who, however, served only fleetingly as a director and it is possible that he was acting merely as a front for Libyan interests. It is something of a coincidence that Wilson should have been arrested, Marwan sold his shareholding and Gaddafadam resigned as a director almost at the same time. A Sunday Times article of 1984 (Appendix 20) gave some background on the Marwan/Libya involvement and it is interesting that Gaddafadam cited Marwan's office as his address in the notification of his directorship to Companies House. The activities of Tradewinds in particular and Lonrho's arms links in general merit the closest inspection and Mr Rowland's attempts to deceive the press serve only to heighten one's suspicions.


 * Mozambique: The twin spectres of Libya and Ashraf Marwan loom large in Mr Rowland's recent business dealings with Mozambique. It is well known that Lonrho has substantial commercial interests in Mozambique and that it was a staunch supporter of Samora Machel's government. Indeed it was revealed in Africa Analysis (Appendices 21 and 22) that Lonrho was financing the provision of security services and military training by Defence Systems Ltd. This was also dealt with at length by the Spectator (Appendix 23). It has also become apparent that the rebel forces in Mozambique, the MNR, enjoy the backing not only of the South Africans but also the Israelis and that the government is facing grave military difficulties (Appendix 24). Following the death of Samora Machel, the Lonrho jet (HB - ITM, Gulfstream III) flew to Maputo on 26 October, 1986 but Rowland was not on it. The plane was being used by Ashraf Marwan of whom Rowland had said on oath in the Griffiths Report (Appendix 25): I would not want to do business with Ashraf Marwan . . . who is totally unreliable when it comes to business . . . In terms of business Dr Ashraf Marwan is totally unreliable.Thus a man considered unreliable flew in the Lonrho jet at a cost of £2,500 an hour at a most sensitive time in Mozambique's history. He was there for the swearing in of the new President, Chissano, and then - on 2 November flew, in the same jet, direct to Tripoli in Libya. We know that Rowland has no need of any political assistance in black Africa because his own abilities in that area are unrivalled. So why did Marwan go to Maputo, at a cost to Lonrho of over £60,000, at such a sensitive time?  There is only one ready explanation. In order to secure the economic prizes of Mozambique, Rowland needs a strong Frelimo government and that government needs all the military support it can get if it is to remain in office. Marwan's role may well have been to assess what armaments were required and then travel to Libya to arrange the financing with Gaddafi or the Gaddafadams. Thus, the Mozambique government is supported, Rowland gets his economic concessions, Marwan gets a large commission on the arms and Gaddafi gets a new theatre of ferment in an area where he has to date enjoyed little influence. The closeness of the Lonrho/Libya link is further underlined by the proposed oil deal covered in December's Business magazine.


 * The Guinness Affair:The Guinness/Distillers affair is likely to remain a corporate cause celebre for months to come but one should not lose sight of the fact that the Guinness bid for Distillers would certainly have been referred to the Monopolies Commission for thorough scrutiny if Guinness had not agreed to sell certain of the Distillers' whisky brands to Lonrho. In essence, a £10 million purchase permitted a £2.6 billion deal to go through.The Daily Mail of 4 December (Appendix 27) [54] called for the DTI to probe the Guinness/Lonrho deal since it was so riddled with inconsistency that it might be suspect. For example, to quantify the domestic Scotch market at £35 million per annum - which the Lonrho purchase price implied - is patently ridiculous and the deal deserves the fullest scrutiny - most particularly in the light of Guinness' own admissions as to the conditions under which it induced its friends to influence share prices.


 * Angola: Support for UNITA. Zimbabwae: Sanction busting. Banada: personal links with many African leaders.


 * Dealings with Defense Systems Ltd: Since its founding, DSL has been heavily involved in Africa. It had contracts in Uganda, under President Milton Obote, until he was overthrown in 1986 by Yoweri Museveni. Despite DSL's alleged assassination attempt against Museveni, it was brought back in, and currently provides security for the U.S. Embassy. In 1986, Tiny Roland, chairman of the British African raw material giant Lonrho, negotiated a rapprochement between Britain and the Marxist governments of Mozambique and Angola; under the deal, DSL received the contracts to train special forces for both governments.


 * Greed: Back in the 1970s British Prime Minister Edward Heath called a Southern African adventurer Tiny Rowland of Lonhro “the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism”. Rowland was motivated by greed and personal ambition and he was able for a time to ride roughshod over public opinion and business principles. Around the same time Shell conspired to break British sanctions against Rhodesia and, with impunity, keep essential oil flowing to Iain Smith’s illegal regime. Whilst the rest of the world was giving South Africa’s racist regime a cold shoulder Lonhro, Shell, and countless other corporations, continued to do business with the devil.


 * Additional comment: His unconventional and individualistic vision was not shared by all, and his keen interest in political developments in Africa were sometimes said to have strayed into active intervention. In 1973 a group of Lonrho directors tried to oust Mr Rowland, claiming that he had bribed African leaders and violated international sanctions imposed on Rhodesia. The affair prompted the former British Prime Minister Edward Heath's memorable comment about "the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism" - to which Mr Rowland replied that he would not want to be its acceptable face. The tycoon also retaliated by compiling a dossier on other British companies guilty of sanction-breaking. Eventually a British government inquiry cleared him of the charge - implicating ministers and calling into question the credibility of the government in the process.But further political intrigues were not far away. In the 1980s he was accused of helping the Marxist government of Mozambique manage its agricultural resources, and he increased Lonrho's South African holdings while sanctions against the apartheid government were still in place. Then in 1992, Mr Rowland controversially sold a stake in some of Lonrho's hotels to the Libyan leader, Colonel Gadaffi, only three years after the Lockerbie bombing which was attributed to Libyan terrorists. The company's fortunes declined in the 1990s. Lonrho's sales peaked in 1990 at more than £6bn but in the 1990s commodity prices slumped and the company's debts threatened profitability.Amid bad publicity Tiny Rowland was ousted in 1994 from the company whose phenomenal growth he had overseen.


 * Assessment: Rowland was tall, handsome, and had an authoritative (even mesmeric) presence even in old age. His names and mannerisms were somewhat artificial self-inventions, and he was blazingly intolerant of any challenges to his versions of reality. Ostentatious living or brash manners bored and repelled him. He disliked accepting hospitality from others. From the 1960s his use of the telephone was perhaps more profuse, and the political altitude of his callers more elevated, than those of any man alive. He was devious, inscrutable, manipulative, and intimidating. Cruel amusement was central to his outlook. His humour was mordant and his invective could be overpowering. He had few interests outside Lonrho, although he adored sun-bathing, liked Siamese cats, and collected African and German expressionist art. He was a superbly accomplished opportunist who was too headstrong and angry to sustain his successes. He died of cancer at the London Clinic, 20 Devonshire Place, Westminster, on 25 July 1998. He was survived by his wife, Josie, and their four children.

Semitransgenic (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Obviously, not all of the material here is evidence of unscrupulousness, but this is useful.  What, at a minimum, would you like to see added to the article before you would support the removal of the 'unbalanced' tag?  - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, in a strictly legal sense, it isn't. This is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of demonstrating that the mans dubious business practices are well documented. In fact, his reputation as an unscrupulous individual precedes him, so this view should be clearly demonstrated in the main article; how you choose to do this is up to you. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you support the removal of the 'unbalanced' tag on any article which does not condemn Tiny Rowland as unscrupulous? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * condemnation is not the goal, facts can be presented coldly and objectively, let the readers draw there own conclusions, right now relevant biographical information is lacking, the fact that some of this information is less that flattering of the mans character is not a conspiracy against his good name. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you could support the removal of the 'unbalanced' tag from an article which did not condemn Tiny Rowland as unscrupulous? Which specific information would you have to see added before you would support the removal of the 'unbalanced' tag? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You could probably figure that out for yourself. The information above was provided to support the validity of the unbalanced banner, as requested by you. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you choose one particular event or piece of information which is currently omitted and which shows Rowland in a bad light please? If it is verifiable, I will add it to the article.  When this is done, I will not remove the 'unbalanced' tag.  I want to make progress with the article.  Thanks - Crosbiesmith (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)