Tel: (+61) 422 933 319

Email: [email protected]

SafeWorlds TV – Response for Alan Metcalfe

Michaels Bio

20 years in the IT Industry (brief Bio)

Initially started out as a system designer and builder in Regional New Zealand in 1994 and grew to become one of the largest resellers in the region in 24 months of commencing business.
Worked for various New Zealand companies it various IT roles between 1996 and 2004, providing infrastructure support, Application support and project work.
In 2004 started working at a startup called Aftermail in Wellington which was sold to Quest Software for $100 Million to be realised over three years (IIRC), my employer was Rod Drury, the founder of Xero , ranked by Forbes as the worlds most innovative Growth company today.
From Aftermail, Worked with Quest Software across the world project managing and designing infrastructure solutions for security, platform integration and compliance.
In Australia I have been involved with many large projects for the 5 largest Banks, many government agencies including the ATO and Defence specifically focusing on their platform modernisation, compliance and audit and business Continuity.
I am a public speaker at many events, training and mentoring and speaking on topics such as Platform integration, Legacy application Modernisation, Security and other topics.
I understand high performing startups and the pressures that are involved, I also understand IT and the rapid pace at which technology moves, products can not sit in a dark room they must be released.
I have seen the IT industry transform into where we are today and I understand the complexities of trying to get a technology into the market and in front of the people who need to buy it.
It is not good enough to have a ‘product’, a product has to be sold hard and an e-commerce platform for the entire global economy is almost the most complex of ‘sells’ there is. Business makes changes and purchase solutions, because;  
a. They will save money
b.  Improve sales
c. They have an internal/external requirement
Which of these is SafeWorlds? And finally, a SafeWorlds e-Commerce technology will still have to connect to non-secure WWW e-Commerce for legacy for a very long time to come, therefore where is the benefit of changing what’s out there today.
The below is in response to Alans reply to my Blog post.
Initial email content in bold

Hello Alan, sorry to contact you out of the blue but I’m very interested in how your technology will make a difference to the existing e commerce technologies that are available and how the TV channels are going to provide a good experience for the channel owners.
AMM: I will try!!!
When I run google searches there is no reference to your technology other than self promotion sites, the terms ‘universal logic’ haven’t registered either so I wonder whether that is such a big discovery as I would certainly register and trademark something so fundamentally new.
AMM: This is very hard to explain to people.  However, you need to know that the world is not honest.  Google and the mainstream media is a direct competitor and they will not go out of their way to promote me or Safe Worlds TV.  The good news is this suits me because, particularly until now, I have not been interested in educating our competitors as to how Universal Logic (Artificial Intelligence) works.  Unfortunately, we get one chance to protect and capitalize on this technology; and once we lose control of it; we will lose any chance of every capitalizing on it.  I therefore have to be very careful what I say; and to whom I say it.  The world of science; and even many parts of the Christian Church, do not want to hear about my work on the Bible.  It is totally unacceptable to many in science that I found Universal Logic in the Bible.  THE GOOD NEWS out of all this; despite all this; we have it; and no one can take that away from us.  We just now need to capitalize on the fact.
Michael thoughts: This statement is extremely improbable, when a technology is developed it needs to be protected. There are videos and limited material available already about this ‘universal logic’ so the secret is ‘out’. Google may curate results but considering the only results that are returned are small business sites and Alans own site I disagree they are being censored.
AMM2: Firstly, I did not say that I believe that we are being censored.  I said that I did not expect that Google or anyone else in the mainstream media to go out of their way to promote me or Safe Worlds TV at this stage.  It is naive of the way the media works to expect otherwise.  I have been in the media all of my adult life; as a publisher, a writer/director/producer; a Web builder; and more recently as a media system architect in Internet TV; so I believe know and understand how the media works very well.
Secondly, I was trying to inform you that we are not actively seeking such publicity at this stage of Safe Worlds TV’s development and establishment.  Consequently, we should not expect the media to seek out, either me or Safe Worlds TV.  There is far too much competition for media attention to expect this.  The reason why we do not actively seek media attention is that we have more than enough support for Safe Worlds TV at this stage.  The last thing we want, at this stage, is greater demand for Safe Worlds TV.  Yes, we have opened Safe Worlds TV to public access for advanced Beta Testing.  So we are not afraid of anyone checking us out.  However, we are tightly controlling the release of Safe Worlds TV to ensure that we remain in control of its growth until all necessary testing is complete.
Thirdly, I speak with people everyday about the discovery of Universal Logic in the Bible; and I am conscious that a significant percentage (even Church leaders) are highly skeptical of my claims.  This does not disturb me because after so many years of people making claims about discovering things in the Bible, that subsequently have turned out not to be true, I should expect such skepticism.  This does not mean however that what I am saying is untrue.  Only time will tell.  No publicity at this stage will convince skeptics otherwise.  The only thing that will convince people is to see Safe Worlds TV working and producing revenue.  And this is our focus.  As I said in my previous correspondence, this is the GOOD NEWS.  We have the technology; it works; and no one can take that away from us, regardless of what people like yourself may suggest to the contrary.
MichaelB #2
Lets start with you qualifications: – your experience as described by yourself.
Widely Experienced E-business system designer, Please elaborate on the wide e-business systems developer ‘Particularly in the US market’? which e-business systems?

if you are asking for my qualifications maybe you should detail some of the systems and where they were/are being used.  

Film Maker, Lets use the most authoritative movie resource in the world (self proclaimed), Not a single film. I’ve also ‘produced’ films that aren’t listed on IMDB, but the reason they aren’t listed is because they were not of a calibre to be considered. So proclaiming to be a filmmaker might be fine but I can equally proclaim to be a Ships captain because I’ve taken a boat into water 14 times.

A highlight of Alans career,  The career highlight of QSTL ( and ( In the words of Alan ”two australian ‘High Tech’ public companies”, there is not a single mention of them with a google search except that they were delisted, SciRad didn’t even survive 4 years after being listed? it would appear that the success was simply with getting the company listed.  

Alans own website has links to ‘Internet Business Systems’ and ‘Court Commerce Corporation’ neither of these links work, yet they are listed as active projects? in addition to this search ‘Internet Business Systems’ turns up with the organisation that actually owns the name.
If this is Alan’s work then the author becomes more impressed. Unfortunately the results when searching for ‘Alan MetCalfe + Internet Business Systems’ does not return any promising information except that the company is no more.

I was browsing the channels today and its extremely difficult to navigate if I was to compare with other Ecommerce sites such as eBay or Amazon.
AMM: I understand that it is at this stage, because it is so comprehensive.  It has to be to cover the World Economy.  Google is simple because it doesn’t do a fraction of what Safe Worlds TV does.  EBay, Amazon, etc., are simple because they are single user monopolies (silos).  Safe Worlds TV has to provide a common User Interface for millions of users.  This isn’t easy.  When Channels start to use their own Vanity URLs within Safe Worlds TV – this will make a big difference – I think.  Also, be assured that we will keep working on simplifying the interface; and educating people to what it is.  I believe it is very important to know what Safe Worlds TV is; then you will marvel, like we do; that it is as simple as it is.;
Michael thoughts: A misfact, Google does indeed cover the world.  Google is customised and localised for most countries already and has been for some time. Additionally Ebay and Amazon are also localised for many many countries. Youtube also covers much of the world, its not true to state SafeWorlds are doing anything thats not already being done. There is no marvelling at the current system.
AMM2: To use your words: a misfact.  Sir, your comment is not accurate.  Google does not cover the “World Economy”.  FACT: the World Economy is not “the world”.  To provide for the World Economy, Google would need to be an electronic business/commerce service; like Safe Worlds TV; and it is not.  Google is a Search Engine; and a very good one, that has been adapted for local consumption throughout the world.  FACT: YouTube is simply a Search Engine, like Google, but for videos.   FACT: EBay is an e-business/commerce site.  However it is a silo system (I hope you know what this means); it is not a distributed system like Safe Worlds TV.  FACT: Amazon is also a Silo/Cloud; and like eBay it is not a distributed system.
Anyone familiar with Internet Platform and e-business system design would know that there is a vast difference between silos (Clouds) and distributed systems.  If there is not, then why has Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web being trying to overcome the limitations of silo systems for the past 25 years?  Why did President George W. Bush allocate billions of dollars for research into solving this problem in 2002, after the 9/11 terror attacks that exposed this problem in US government and military systems?  If you understood the design realities of the World Wide Web; and its limitations; and the history of the Internet and the Web, you would be aware of these very significant differences.  You would also instantly realize that Safe Worlds TV must be something special, simply because of what it obviously does; that these other systems do not do.
Michael #2 Alan you would want to reread my comment, I never said anything about the ‘World Economy’ nor did I mention ‘silos vs distributed’, which I am very well versed at, that is the nature of my job.
My response to your answer was related to the localisation of interfaces which companies like I mentioned above have all successfully completed, nothing to do with global economies! My questioning was to understand why its taken Safe Worlds over 14 years to have no localisation or even a simple modern interface? Google started at a similar time and was able to build a global search, email, application, social platform for almost all nations within a much shorter timeframe and the initial investment was under $1 million dollars.
My questioning was why haven’t you been able to release anything at all when start-ups all around are managing to do exactly that.
Introducing names like Sir Tim Berners-Lee or George W. Bush does NOT increase your credibility, the information you connect with their names also does nothing to your argument. Your linkage of those names to the Safeworlds solution is to say that if ‘one’ understands the limitations of the WWW then one will understand why your solution is so special? safeworlds TV is NOT a solution to the problem of ‘Distributed vs Silo’. There will never be in my lifetime a single ‘distributed’ platform for all of the internet.
Look at the European Union, what happens when one monetary and political system controls many member countries. The system starts to crack and things begin to fall apart as countries have differing productivity levels, different social and political needs. The common currency in use across the member countries in Europe as demonstrated by the fallout after the GFC has proven that there will never (in our lifetime) be a single global economy.
Companies are and always will be logical (if not physical as well) silos for Data which is their Intellectual Property , to share with third parties they provide API’s and other connectors for distributed systems to connect and ‘do’ the required work.
Consider OpenID, OAuth and other authentication solutions (FaceBook, Twitter, Google Auth), these are third party platforms to allow connections beyond an organisations firewall. Paypal is another example of a platform for e-commerce that is easily integrated into any company with a web presence.

I guess what I’m saying here is that SafeWorlds TV is a solution (if its a solution at all) looking for a problem to solve.    

As a system architect (infrastructure) myself I would really like to understand how the systems work and how its going to repair the global economy.
AMM: As a system’s architect, you should know the difficulty of designing a common user interface for the entire World Economy.  Designing a user interface for a single user Website, no matter how big the user, is simple.  Try designing one for a million users and see how difficult it becomes.  This is the beauty of the Safe Worlds TV user interface.  It is a common user interface that can handle every business; every enterprise; and every participant in the World Economy.
Michael thoughts: A complete misfact. As above many e-commerce sites already work in many countries and they manage to be successful. Youtube would be another successful example of localisation working and a cleanish UI.
‘World Economy’ is not going to happen with this idea, there are already successful organisations doing this such as Paypal, Google Wallet etc.
AMM2: Sorry Michael but you’re misunderstanding/misrepresenting of the facts makes you look foolish for anyone who knows the facts about computer system design.  THIS IS THE FACT: – there is no comprehensive, fully integrated, fully interoperable, distributed Internet TV and e-business system in the world, other than Safe Worlds TV.  Yes, Google, Youtube, PayPal, etc., may be sold in every country of the world.  This does not mean however that, in IT system design terminology, that they are “distributed systems”.  They are not.  Why is a “distributed architecture” important, because there is no way for a single, centralized system architecture to handle the load of the World Economy.  When I speak of the World Economy, I am talking about the business activity of the world.  There is a very big difference.  Now, if you disagree with this, then you are also arguing against Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, who has been trying to design and develop a distributed system architecture like Safe Worlds TV, that he calls The Semantic Web, for the past 25 years.  This is public knowledge that you can check out by simply studying the World Wide Web Consortium Website at

Michael #2: I don’t mind looking foolish, you have claimed above that the SafeWorlds TV platform is a ‘comprehensive, fully integrated, fully interoperable, distributed Internet TV and e-business system’. How so when there is not a product? A distributed platform requires a physical presence. Where are the Safeworld TV’s data centres and who is SafeWorld using for hosting, because in your words a single centralised system couldn’t handle the load which countries are hosting your server infrastructure?
Again to look foolish, why does one need semantic search to have e-commerce? e-commerce exists today without it, semantic search gives machines the capability to read and understand data rather than just index it, but the internet side of e-commerce is a simple concept of: product, price list and a purchase mechanism. Please explain how AI is needed for this?
Again using Sir Tim Berners-Lee doesn’t add to the credibility of your claims, what really would add validation is the communications you have had with Sir Tim regarding your discovery? this would be the detail that would allow people to understand that your solution will provide the answer to AI, upon seeing that I for one would have no choice but to accept that I’ve been wrong.
After all Sir Tim is very interested in this and you would be very famous if you can demonstrate it.

I have been told about what Safeworlds is multiple times and I’m very curious as I have people suggesting that I should buy into it.
AMM: You have to come to that decision yourself.  However, I humbly suggest that if you understand where the IT world is at this stage; and what are the big obstacles that the industry has run into; you should know that “he who wins the Artificial Intelligence battle” wins the whole prize.  That’s why Safe Worlds TV is such a good investment, because we have AI.  I made the critical breakthrough 14 years ago.   This gives us a huge start in understanding what it is; and how to get it working commercially.  And you should know that the AI that I am talking about is not the AI that IBM has developed, for example; that is not distributable on a mass basis; as Safe Worlds TV is.  What we have is real AI – we have the Holy Grail.
Michael thoughts: An almost true statement ‘Come to the decision yourself’. As an IT consultant I do not believe that winning the AI battle wins the whole prize, its simply not true there are so many battles that are equally important, hell I just want Netflix to work without a proxy in Oz.  Having made the huge breakthrough 14 years ago and still having done nothing to monetise this discovery after accepting money from mom and pop investors is rubbish.
AMM2: Michael, firstly, you are showing your ignorance of the facts again.  I for one would certainly not claim to be an “IT Consultant” and say the things that you say, because they are clearly not correct, to anyone who has any real experience in the IT industry.  Firstly, if Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not critical to the future of ubiquitous e-business, then why has Google hired AI expert Ray Kurzweil to head its Future Research effort?  See:   If AI is not that important, was has IBM been working on AI for the past 15 years, at least?  See:
Secondly, to compare Safe Worlds TV with Netflix is also very misleading.  And you obviously do this, either, out of ignorance; or you intentionally want to be misleading, to prove your point.  Safe Worlds TV is nothing like Netflix.  Netflix is a Web portal, silo, or cloud that sells movies.  Safe Worlds TV is fully integrated, fully interoperable, distributable Internet TV platform and e-business system.  There is a very big difference.
Thirdly, if you knew anything about the commercialization of major technologies that impact the world, as AI will, you would know that 14 years from discovery to commercial production is not a long time.  In the Oil Industry, that is widely understood; and for which there is already a well established worldwide demand, for example, the average lag time between discovery and production is 8-10 years.  The Internet itself was around for about 30 years before the World Wide Web came along and proved its value.  25 years later, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is still trying to design and develop the next generation Web that he calls the Semantic Web.  Only today, 8 ½ years after first floating the idea, and taking millions of dollars off investors, Sir Richard Branson’s rocket plane flew into outer space; and he has still not delivered commercial space travel to his investors who purchased tickets years ago.  Based on these facts, would you also be willing to similarly criticize Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Sir Richard Branson?
None of this means that we could not have commercialized Safe Worlds TV before now.  I agree with this.  However, to suggest that this somehow means that Safe Worlds TV is not real, ignores the fact that Safe Worlds TV’s development was interrupted in 2008, by one of the biggest global financial crises of the 20th Century.  It also ignores the fact that we have developed this major breakthrough on a shoestring budget; in an industry that is changing all the time; and more than any other industry has changed in history.  It is very emotive; and probably sounds great to the uninformed who have never invented or developed anything, to suggest that somehow all this means that we are taking investment from innocent “mums and pops” dishonestly.  However, this is not true and you are deceitfully playing with the facts when you suggest this to express your own lack of awareness of the facts relating to this matter.
Michael #2: Again you have misread my Netflix comparison, I made a reference to the complexity that exists in my day to day life without AI even being in the picture.
But I’m glad you raised the Netflix comparison because it IS an Internet TV platform! you are wrong to suggest otherwise and I would suggest you re investigate your facts.

The largest financial crisis of the 20th Century? you had investment money to continue developing your product and the crisis was a catalyst for many changes in IT and other business, I know I worked through it and my company continued to make money. Imagine having released an AI platform when companies were downsizing and needed more affordable ways to build business. In every disaster there are amazing opportunities for new disruptive technology to take over and you missed out on that one.
You are also very very wrong in suggesting that any modern technology company can be compared with an exploration and mineral company. Firstly a technology company does not have to raise the same capital, they do not have to manufacture and they do not have to build plant. That statement is completely inaccurate and has no comparable technology to relate that against: Give me one technology company that’s been around 14 years and has not released a product?
You say yourself that this industry is changing all the time and more than any other industry in history? that shows you understand that constant change means product has to be developed and released rapidly.  
Money is made not with the invention of AI, its made with consumers purchasing a product thats considered new or exciting: Apple, Microsoft, Google products etc, Safeworlds AI is(if it exists) a back end platform for connecting systems. The money made from back-end systems is through agreements between businesses and your platform, through commissions, connection agreements etc. Which again leads to the platform being available if business is going to use it and your investors are going to start seeing any return.
You must be aware that as business so rapidly changes that every day you do not release your platform is another day that another company may release what you are trying to achieve before SafeWorlds TV has a chance to IPO.
Again do not use names of famous people, this I would consider is an attempt to build your credibility without substance, unless I’m mistaken you have no connection with them whatsoever.
I’m very curious how the system is going to change the economy because that would be an amazing thing.
AMM: The economy is already changing; we are moving from the traditional way of doing business; into the Digital Age.  We are now past the tipping point where the world must go electronic.  The only problem is that the world does not have the platform or the system to go electronic.  The World Wide Web is not suitable and cannot be retrofitted as required for ubiquitous e-business.  Every IT expert in the world recognizes this.  So my job, as a system designer, is not to come up with the smart idea of how to change the world; I just have to design the vehicle that makes it possible.  This is what is now missing.  To design such a vehicle, you must first find and come to understand Artificial Intelligence, because there is no other way to handle the load.  You can’t build a centrally controlled silo, big enough.
Michael thoughts: This final statement does not make sense, the world does infact have platforms that allow exactly what Alan says can’t be done. The WWW is already de-centralised so this is not a problem either. Considering Alan already found AI 14 years ago I’m concerned that he is still looking for it. AI is not the answer to e-commerce though it may sound convincing if one does not understand technology
AMM2: Once again Michael, for an IT Consultant; and a fellow who is obviously keen to blog about what he thinks is a great piece of investigative journalism, your command of the facts is astonishingly dismal.  FACT #1:  The World Wide Web is not a decentralized Internet TV Platform and E-business system like Safe Worlds TV.  Yes, the Web is accessible all over the world.  However, this does not mean that it is a “decentralized platform”.  If it is, then why is it impossible to create fully integrated, fully interoperable e-business marketplaces on the Web?  If it is, then why is it not possible to establish worldwide digital monetization on the Web?  Why has Rupert Murdoch been saying for several years now that “we must have a way to monetize the Web, other than Search”?  Why is it not possible to solve the problems of privacy and security, on the Web?  Why is Sir Tim Berners-Lee calling for a Magna Carta to solve the problems of Web privacy and security; and not for a technical solution?  If the World Wide Web is so suitable, as you say, then why is Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web; and the director of the World Wide Web Consortium of most of the biggest IT companies in the world, also trying to design and develop the Semantic Web; or what some call The Next Generation Web?  Would you say that Sir Tim; and the members of the W3C are all misguided; and unlike yourself; they do not understand the technology?
FACT #2: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is so important because it is the only way to overcome the limitations of the World Wide Web mentioned above.  You may not agree with this.  However, I would humbly suggest that after 30 years of working on this problem; including the past 14 years since my discovery of Universal Logic and the development of Safe Worlds TV, I am slightly better credentialed than you are to comment on this issue.  This does not mean that I am right, only that I think I have slightly more information to work on than you do.  I may be wrong; and if you disagree, and you are an honest correspondent, then you should provide your readers with a list of your career achievements (your track record) so that they can compare who has the greater experience.  I would be delighted it you would do this; and I would be readily prepared to bow to your greater experience, if that were proven to be true.  To suggest, as you do, that I make statements out of my lack of understanding of this subject, without providing evidence of your superior knowledge, is either extreme arrogance; or a wee bit cowardly.
FACT #3:  To correct your misinformation; and to ease your “concern”: I am not still looking for AI.  The fact that I continue to develop and expand my understanding of Artificial Intelligence (AI) does not mean that I am still looking for it.  Henry Ford produced his first automobile in 1908 – 106 years ago.  Motor car manufacturers are still making improvement to Ford’s Model T.  The Wright Brothers discovered how to make aero planes fly in 1903 – 111 years ago.  Airline manufacturers are still making improvements to what the Wright Brothers discovered.   On this basis, would you say that Henry Ford was still looking for how to make a commercial motor car when he produced the Model T?  Or, would you say that the Wright Brothers will still looking for how to make airplanes fly when the saw the Wright Flyer III fly in 1905?

Michael #2: Again using famous names and trying to discredit my opinion is less than genuine. Describe your solution to Rupert Murdoch’s issue around monetising the web? Murdock puts a paywall up in front of his newspapers and people go get their news elsewhere where its still free? Explain how your system fixes this?
Explain how the web today is not suitable for the people using it? you have described how its not good enough but its used across the world and what complaints do people have? That their internet is too slow!  
Security? How does SafeWorlds TV solve the issue of Security. Each person has a device to connect to the internet/safeworlds. That device is vulnerable and regardless of the platform simple phishing/ social engineering will remain the easiest way to steal someones credentials. Alternatively hacking internet platforms, you would be a very brave person to insist that your platform is not hackable. As I mentioned earlier security risks are from inside your organisation just as much as outside.
Privacy? People give away their privacy every day, FaceBook, Gmail, Opt-in free offers, almost any free application on the Apple or Google Play stores etc etc. Most people don’t even know they are doing this.
Again it seems that the Safeworld solution is looking for a problem to solve, but in addition where does AI and semantic search come into the security/privacy question?


It is very easy for this to be resolved and me to be proved wrong, as you mentioned you wanted openness and thats exactly what would fix this.
Demonstrate what the platform can do currently, not the problems with the current WWW, show how SafeWorlds TV fixes the current lack of security and provides an ecommerce solution for the world. I am fully versed with start ups as you will realise if you look at my Bio and understand the challenges with funding and growing as well as product stability and release cycles.

4 responses

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Hi Mike have just rediscovered your blog.
    Here we are middle of 2016 and still no further down the track.
    Same stories and failure to deliver from @safeworldstv .
    Making continual progress is all we hear.
    Enhancements are continually made to the private phone which was apparently a great product 2 years ago. There must be nothing this phone will not be able to now after all the enhancements surely. We should expect it to be able to do the washing and fuel your car for you.
    How much longer can this go on for?

  2. mlbrooke Avatar

    I'm hoping that Alan will give me some answers which are more descriptive than what I've received currently. Basically the answers so far are: Lots of people are looking for this solution (the one that Alan has), Alan has had it for 14 years, he has repeatedly failed to deliver on milestone dates and worse than that has returned $0 to his investors. But…. have Faith….

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    Mike it seems he avoids answering many of the questions you asked.You raise very valid points to which he seems to choose to not answer at all.He seems to think the best form of defence is attack.

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    Mike it seems he avoids answering many of the questions you asked.You raise very valid points to which he seems to choose to not answer at all.He seems to think the best form of defence is attack.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Forgotten Password?