Mr Bates and the post office

Sponsored Links
investors would de-invest overnight. For me its sufficient to hold the leadership to account and of course prosecuted any criminal activity or take civil action for breach of contract.
They wouldn't, it's a profitable organisation, just have to get the balance right on penalty versus deterrent
 
A start indeed...

But I fear you misunderstood my post...

I said "Any idea how to go about that?"

Because we live under a corporate government system...

So could you tell if you believe any government would actually do anything that you suggest?
It was an idea, in response to your question, any idea.
 
I like the fact that the govt. are considering a some sort of windfall on Fujitsu. First rule of litigation - find the money.
Windfall/penalty same outcome, looks like Gillian Keegan's husband has been drawn into this.


Venals has handed back her gong, does anyone feel any better?
 
Sponsored Links
Windfall/penalty same outcome, looks like Gillian Keegan's husband has been drawn into this.


Venals has handed back her gong, does anyone feel any better?
Do you have access to Linkedin? Look him up, thats an unbelievable stretch - trying to link him, given the positions he held.
 
Ask the people who earned theirs, which are no longer devalued to some degree. (y)
and for Alan Bates who was awarded an OBE (lower award), its less of a smack in the face.

It would have been nice if she was stripped of it, but I suspect she "heard" what was coming.
 
They wouldn't, it's a profitable organisation, just have to get the balance right on penalty versus deterrent

maybe think it through a bit more...:

- What if I structure my investment through multiple investment vehicles, funds etc?
- Why would I invest in companies where I was legally accountable for their conduct, when I could simply invest in a jurisdiction where no such rule appleid?
 
Do you have access to Linkedin? Look him up, thats an unbelievable stretch - trying to link him, given the positions he held.
Not saying he's implicated, but the press are going down the what politicians can we draw into this route. But I'm not sure he will be complaining that no one told him he did a fuc*ing good job.
 
maybe think it through a bit more...:

- What if I structure my investment through multiple investment vehicles, funds etc?
- Why would I invest in companies where I was legally accountable for their conduct, when I could simply invest in a jurisdiction where no such rule appleid?
Legislation that puts the onus of disclosure and tax payment on owners of complex investment vehicles, offshore or otherwise, would address this. Backed up by pro active enforcement, not the lily livered approach that HMRC takes to tax avoidance/evasion atm. It's not asking much o ensure the controlling share holders keep a weather eye on the conduct of the company.
 
It's not asking much o ensure the controlling share holders keep a weather eye on the conduct of the company.
It's actually asking the impossible...

Most of the controlling shareholders have relationships with those on other companies...

Just like the 'remuneration committees' who turn a blind eye to obscene rewards for failure...

Because it has always been a case of 'you scratch my back....'
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top