North Korea

I think the UK is good at money laundering, too.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-london-homes-for-foreign-human-rights-abusers-assets-magnitsky-act-criminal-finances-bill-a7591656.html

I think the important difference is that NK money laundering is said to be state sponsored. We, hopefully, are just a country with our allotted share of criminals.

Tell that to HMRC and HSBC.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/21/british-snub-eu-investigation-panama-papers-treasury-hmrc

Interesting but a lot of it is supposition and innuendo, and certainly nothing close to state sponsored money laundering.
DJ I can see you like the Guardian, but it's bias leaves me struggling to give it more credibility than the DM (apologies if you find the comparison at all offensive. I do appreciate the differences between the two in terms of the tone of reporting). Both papers are pretty good at rooting out important issues, but I like to see balance in reporting reporting and I don't see much of that in either of those papers. Having said that I can't pretend to have read either to any great extent.
Off topic I know.

Obviously not good at hairdressing judging by the state of Kim Yong Un hair ?

Fitzy apart from championing the Lawrence case, what else has the DM done in recent years that is remotely worthy? I read the Guardian every day and there are columnists of all shades of opinion eg Simon Jenkins on the right and many shades from there through to Owen Jones. They don't employ the disgraceful Katie Hopkins, they don't print column inch after column inch of celebrity gossipy, often misogynistic rubbish. Every year they do a huge worthwhile charity appeal at Christmas which the DM do not. I'm fond of the Guardian like I am of an old friend - sometimes infuriating but its heard is in the right place . It has had to cut down on its columnists because like all print media, its struggling financially but is keeping its online free.

State sponsored money laundering. They know it happens but do nothing about it.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/23/the-guardian-view-on-uks-tax-havens-british-laws-or-your-own

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/20/the-global-laundromat-how-did-it-work-and-who-benefited

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/20/how-dirty-money-from-russia-flooded-into-the-uk-and-where-it-went

www.occrp.org/en/daily/5452-analysis-brexit-uk-upheaval-threatens-anti-corruption-efforts

Thanks DJ but too much to read for the moment! And will get back to you too Rigby.

That's okay, Fitzy. Just to show I don't just read the Guardian!

Getting away from news papers you have two mentally narcissistic men leading major nuclear countrys Putin gets involved and goodbye world

Why Putin?

Three narcissistic men. Any advance on three?

DJ I'm afraid I found the articles too unbalanced for my taste. Interesting but unconvincing.
WW I wouldn't compare the Mail and the Guardian in terms of their general content, and while I can understand why you are attached to the paper, I can understand how some people are attached to the mail - whether it's because they like celebrity stories or just because it says a lot of things they agree with. But in both cases I do find it difficult to identify a balanced viewpoint. But maybe I'll try again.
Anyway, apologies to Bluebell for another digression - I'll hand back to the NK discussion.

Weird, Fitzy. What sort of balance do you expect to get from a group looking int organised crime and corruption?
They have a hard enough time of it anyway, without being expected to put balance into their reports.

What sort of balance do you expect from the anti-corruption lawyers in this country?

Will you still say you are unconvinced when they end up in jail, or will you say well done, anti-corruption unit?

Things aren't always solid black or white.

Above post was about newspapers.

Except......they are in black and white.