Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby Si_Crewe » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:05 pm

McAz wrote:It still astonishes me that so many otherwise decent people direct their spite at those have the least - schadenfreude is a most unpleasant trait.


The issue is WHO is being deprived of any money as a result of dishonest activities.

If you're talking about bankers and financiers who're doing dishonest things which deprive the government of tax money then, sure, they need catching and punishing and the government needs to get the money it's owed.
If, OTOH, they're just taking advantage of legal methods of avoiding taxation, or if they're fiddling their investors, then the government really has no dog in that fight so there's little (financially) to be gained from pursuing them.

Personally, I tend to think the real reasons that governments are so keen to go after benefits claimants is 1) because it's good publicity and 2) because it's all they're capable of.

Let's face it, if you're a hedge fund manager who's getting paid half a million quid a year, it's probably because you're pretty good at your job.
That being the case, I doubt there are many people in the public sector who're capable of catching those people if they are doing something dishonest.
It's far simpler (and cheaper) to catch somebody who's carried on cashing their granny's pension two years after she snuffed it.
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4586
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:33 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:15 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
McAz wrote:It still astonishes me that so many otherwise decent people direct their spite at those have the least - schadenfreude is a most unpleasant trait.


The issue is WHO is being deprived of any money as a result of dishonest activities.

If you're talking about bankers and financiers who're doing dishonest things which deprive the government of tax money then, sure, they need catching and punishing and the government needs to get the money it's owed.
If, OTOH, they're just taking advantage of legal methods of avoiding taxation, or if they're fiddling their investors, then the government really has no dog in that fight so there's little (financially) to be gained from pursuing them.

Personally, I tend to think the real reasons that governments are so keen to go after benefits claimants is 1) because it's good publicity and 2) because it's all they're capable of.

Let's face it, if you're a hedge fund manager who's getting paid half a million quid a year, it's probably because you're pretty good at your job.
That being the case, I doubt there are many people in the public sector who're capable of catching those people if they are doing something dishonest.
It's far simpler (and cheaper) to catch somebody who's carried on cashing their granny's pension two years after she snuffed it.


That's your issue - my issue is the plight of the poor. Afaic, the system is designed in favour of, and by, the rich and powerful - the definition of "illegality" is therefore a component of that design.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby Si_Crewe » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:25 pm

McAz wrote:That's your issue - my issue is the plight of the poor. Afaic, the system is designed in favour of, and by, the rich and powerful - the definition of "illegality" is therefore a component of that design.


I prefer to maintain moral consistency regardless of the wealth of a dishonest person.
Both are equally worthy of prosecution IMO.

The only difference, and the only benefit to society as a whole, is in the amount of money that can be saved or recovered by apprehending dishonest people.
That being the case, the competence of those doing the apprehending should be an issue for ALL of us.
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4586
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:33 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:26 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
McAz wrote:That's your issue - my issue is the plight of the poor. Afaic, the system is designed in favour of, and by, the rich and powerful - the definition of "illegality" is therefore a component of that design.


I prefer to maintain moral consistency regardless of the wealth of a dishonest person.
Both are equally worthy of prosecution IMO.

The only difference, and the only benefit to society as a whole, is in the amount of money that can be saved or recovered by apprehending dishonest people.
That being the case, the competence of those doing the apprehending should be an issue for ALL of us.


The rich pay for and design the sytem - morality therefore suspect.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby Si_Crewe » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:37 pm

McAz wrote:The rich pay for and design the sytem - morality therefore suspect.


It'd be foolish to assume that immoral behaviour is solely (or even disproportionately) the preserve of the rich.
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4586
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:33 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:39 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
McAz wrote:The rich pay for and design the sytem - morality therefore suspect.


It'd be foolish to assume that immoral behaviour is solely (or even disproportionately) the preserve of the rich.


Regardless, there is one law for rich, another for poor.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby Si_Crewe » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:48 pm

McAz wrote:Regardless, there is one law for rich, another for poor.


Can you provide an example?
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4586
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:33 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:00 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:
McAz wrote:Regardless, there is one law for rich, another for poor.


Can you provide an example?


This bloke can:

The country’s most senior judge suggested there was “one law for the rich and another for the poor”

Lord Thomas, the lord chief justice, said that the penalty imposed on Philip Edward Day, a retail tycoon who is believed to be worth £300 million, should not still be outstanding as a debt to the Exchequer.

“It seems to me there is one law for the rich and another for the poor,” he said in the Court of Appeal.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=One+law+for+rich%2C+another+for+poor%2C+complains+judge&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=F7hLWYD3IajH8AfLh6DwBg

But there are thousands of better examples as you and google well know.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby wutang » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:04 pm

Camden set to remove cladding from Chalcots Estate tower blocks

After receiving results of independent testing of cladding on Chalcots Estate from the laboratory at the Building Research Establishment, Camden Council's Leader has made the following statement:

http://news.camden.gov.uk/camden-set-to ... er-blocks/



Contractor installed the non-fire resistant stuff even though the council asked for the fire resistant stuff:

“The new results from the laboratory show that the outer cladding panels themselves are made up of aluminium panels with a polyethylene core.

“Therefore the panels that were fitted were not to the standard that we had commissioned. In light of this, we will be informing the contractor that we will be taking urgent legal advice.


How many buildings say they have the fire resistant cladding on the building documents but don't due to contractors fitting the cheaper variety :dunno:
User avatar
wutang
 
Posts: 6269
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:02 am
Location: Globalist Department, Frankfurt School

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:05 pm

wutang wrote:Contractor installed the non-fire resistant stuff even though the council asked for the fire resistant stuff:

How many buildings say they have the fire resistant cladding on the building documents but don't due to contractors fitting the cheaper variety :dunno:


That's even more worrying.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby wutang » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:06 pm

McAz wrote:
But there are thousands of better examples as you and google well know.


Wage theft by employers is a good one:

https://newrepublic.com/article/119410/ ... llion-year

One study puts it at greater than all thefts and burglaries combined. Funny how prisons are filled with thieves and burglars but not employers
User avatar
wutang
 
Posts: 6269
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:02 am
Location: Globalist Department, Frankfurt School

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:09 pm

wutang wrote:
McAz wrote:
But there are thousands of better examples as you and google well know.


Wage theft by employers is a good one:

https://newrepublic.com/article/119410/ ... llion-year

One study puts it at greater than all thefts and burglaries combined. Funny how prisons are filled with thieves and burglars but not employers

Very unfunny - but when you control the media and government it's easy to give the appearance of an alternative truth.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby Si_Crewe » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:27 pm

wutang wrote:
Camden set to remove cladding from Chalcots Estate tower blocks

After receiving results of independent testing of cladding on Chalcots Estate from the laboratory at the Building Research Establishment, Camden Council's Leader has made the following statement:

http://news.camden.gov.uk/camden-set-to ... er-blocks/



Contractor installed the non-fire resistant stuff even though the council asked for the fire resistant stuff:

“The new results from the laboratory show that the outer cladding panels themselves are made up of aluminium panels with a polyethylene core.

“Therefore the panels that were fitted were not to the standard that we had commissioned. In light of this, we will be informing the contractor that we will be taking urgent legal advice.


How many buildings say they have the fire resistant cladding on the building documents but don't due to contractors fitting the cheaper variety :dunno:


That must be a bit awkward for all the people who've so gleefully criticised the penny-pinching tory local authority for their failures up until now.

I recall, years ago, that there were many cases where the military complained about receiving sub-standard equipment.
The MOD would attempt to blame the supplier by saying "Well, we asked for X and the evil supplier provided Y instead"
The supplier would then say "Well, you might have asked for X but when we proposed Y as a cheaper alternative you happily agreed"

In that sort of situation, I would tend to continue to blame the buyer for agreeing to the cheaper alternative.

In this situation, it's probably wise to wait and see what was actually AGREED between the local authority, the owners of the building and the contractors.
If the council asked for fireproof cladding but then agreed to a cheaper alternative then it's still their responsibility.
Conversely, if the owner or contractor agreed to fit fireproof cladding but then cheaped-out, that's down to them.

Which, if that was the case, rather begs the question of why the building inspectors didn't pick up on the non-conformance during their routine inspections.
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4586
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:33 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby McAz » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:33 pm

Si_Crewe wrote:That must be a bit awkward for all the people who've so gleefully criticised the penny-pinching tory local authority for their failures up until now.


Might be, but Camden is Labour controlled - we do not yet know if this excuse applies to K&C.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 43441
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park

Postby Si_Crewe » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:36 pm

McAz wrote:Very unfunny - but when you control the media and government it's easy to give the appearance of an alternative truth.


Hang on... it's only a few minutes ago that you were arguing that the "appearance of truth" is more important that facts in politics. :scratch:


As for the whole "one law for the rich" thing, I'll concede you're right there, partially at least.
I don't think there are different laws for rich and poor people but I'd certainly agree that rich people have opportunities to use their wealth to gain advantages that poor people don't have available to them.
To argue that would simply be pedantry and I'm not going to indulge in that.

In general, though, I'm not sure what might be done about it.
I'm sure you'd agree that poor people are just as corrupt as rich people. Hell, often the only difference in the value of any wrongdoing.
Seems like whoever yo put in charge, the same problems are going to exist.
Pretty much every type of society on the planet, regardless of the political system in place, proves this is the case.
User avatar
Si_Crewe
 
Posts: 4586
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:33 am

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests

cron