what price corporate responsibility? November 30, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : truth , add a commentThe House of Commons International Development Committee has published a report which is quite critical of BAE Systems’ delay in making payments it promised to make as part of a settlement with respect to “improper book-keeping” with the Serious Fraud Office in 2010:
The Settlement Agreement did not require BAE Systems to make the ex gratia payment by a specified date. We recognise that the payment could not have been made before the conclusion of the Court proceedings on 21 December 2010. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the payment for the ‘benefit of the people of Tanzania’ remained outstanding more than eight months after the Court hearing and that BAE Systems envisaged spreading payment over a period of years, describing the payments as ‘our money’. Following our evidence session, we wrote to the Chairman of BAE Systems, urging the company in the strongest possible terms to pay immediately the full £29.5 million ex gratia payment to the Government of Tanzania in accordance with the proposals made by that Government and endorsed by DFID. Finally, the company agreed. We welcome this decision announced in a letter to the Committee Chair dated 19 August 2011 to make the payment to the Government of Tanzania and subsequent confirmation that it had made arrangements for the payment.
BAE of course believes in corporate responsibility:
Maintaining high standards of business conduct is essential to enhance our overall business performance, build trust, and maintain and improve our reputation with stakeholders.
Its Code of Conduct states that:
To be Trusted we must deliver on our commitments.
Just not all of them, apparently. Or at least not very speedily.
knowledge July 20, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : truth , add a commentVia the Guardian, Cameron spinning on Wallis:
On claims that Wallis provided Coulson with some informal advice on a voluntary basis before the election, Cameron said: “To the best of my knowledge I didn’t know anything about this until Sunday night.” He later added that he did not know Wallis had been contracted to work for Scotland Yard.
Surely this should be “as far as I remember” (I don’t recall) rather than “[t]o the best of my knowledge”? Either way it looks a bit slippery.
Is Vince Cable feeling vindicated now? The Evening Standard suggests he is.
britons are well off after lord young’s resignation or not? November 20, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : truth , add a commentLord Young, the author of the recent Common Sense, Common Safety report, resigned as adviser to the UK Government after stating in an interview that:
For the vast majority of people in the country today, they have never had it so good ever since this recession – this so-called recession – started, because anybody, most people with a mortgage who were paying a lot of money each month, suddenly started paying very little each month.
His resignation letter states that he resigns, not because what he said suggested complete incomprehension of the situation ordinary Britons now face, but:
in view of the reaction to the reporting of the interview I gave earlier this week
Not his fault, but the fault of those who heard what he said. And this from an adviser to a Government which claims to be eliminating quangos to increase transparency and accountability. But is it really better for Governments to be careful about what they and their advisers say in front of journalists or for voters to be able to hear their private and uninformed prejudices?
why this picture? June 8, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : truth , comments closedThe Guardian’s current picture of Cameron makes him look particularly obnoxious (and not very intelligent):
the truth problem November 2, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : truth , comments closedReading about writing about the trust problem I am struck by the regularity of news stories about lying. The UK’s Office of the Schools Adjudicator has published a report on fraudulent or misleading applications for admission to schools (parents lying about their address to obtain places for their children in desirable schools). The report concludes that this is a real problem which does cause harm:
fraudulent or misleading applications only arise when there is competition for school places. It is therefore also obvious that every school place obtained by deception is unfair as it deprives another child with possibly a higher legitimate call on the place to be deprived of it
The deceptive parents and their children may not suffer any real sanction (although younger siblings may not be given access to the same school), even when they are found out, as some local authorities
reported that their authorities were reluctant to apply the sanctions in the Code and withdraw places after the beginning of the school year … after the child had started at the school, as it would not be in the best interests of the child. In one instance an LA reported that they would not want the ensuing negative publicity! LAs and appeal panels were reluctant to ‘punish’ a child for the actions of the parent.
It’s harder to understand why people would cheat in a marathon race. I’d have thought the thing to celebrate there would be having managed to complete the race in a certain time frame, rather than that others might erroneously believe that you had done so. But I’d apparently be wrong. And it’s not like people can really get away with this, as there are electronic timing records. People are sometimes caught and they seem to use the language of fraudsters when they are caught:
two California women [had] suspicious times in last year’s race. There was no electronic timing record of them from Miles 17 to 25. Discussing in a telephone interview whether she had run the whole race, Ms. Savinar said, “I technically hadn’t.”
There’s nothing technical about this. Either you run the whole 26 miles or you don’t. If you don’t, you haven’t run a marathon.