doctorow at July 25th, 2013 13:18 — #1
jandrese at July 25th, 2013 13:25 — #2
Sounds like the Serious Crimes Agency is just living up to their name. I don't know why you have that, isn't there enough crime in the UK already?
tuseroni at July 25th, 2013 14:01 — #3
"protect the 'financial viability of major organisations by tainting them with public association with criminality'"
you know how else you can protect your organization from being tainted with public association with criminality? DON'T DO THINGS THAT ARE CRIMINAL!
jardine at July 25th, 2013 14:06 — #4
Stop talking crazy talk.
ironedithkidd at July 25th, 2013 14:07 — #5
Pfft. That's for the little people.
jonl at July 25th, 2013 14:45 — #6
Good thing nothing like this could happen in the USA...
peregrinus_bis at July 25th, 2013 15:36 — #7
Move along there sonny. Nothing to see here. Move along.
ygret at July 25th, 2013 20:02 — #8
One thing that bothers me about this is that most people think that powerful corporations and individuals are just like them. Most people have a sense of what is decent and proper and assume that powerful people have the same inhibitions on improper or criminal behavior. History tells us the exact opposite is true: that rich and powerful people are much more likely to act in ways most of us find immoral or abhorrent, and they don't break a sweat while doing so. As societies we need to acknowledge this phenomenon and reconfigure our oversight capabilities to ensure that the powerful are kept in line. The sad fact is that our systems are configured in the exact opposite way.
nathanhornby at July 26th, 2013 10:13 — #9
That's because they're configured by the powerful people.
miasm at July 26th, 2013 13:22 — #10
I have the rather unwelcome and annoying inclination that there really is, at base, some truth to the claim for the requirement of special treatment of big business and their politicians.
Perhaps the maintenance of the West's relative comfort really does call for some legally questionable behaviour from time to time.
However, the tacit assumption that you may have to step outside of regular operating procedures should not be used as an excuse to formulate every single action as criminally and arrogantly as possible.
If you can't manage your own bending of the rules without instantly splintering them, you just shouldn't be allowed to flex them at all.
By all means, the establishment should go ahead and try to pull its collective ass out of the fire but I feel a sea change coming and fear this may just be the death throes of an injured and terrified organism.
An organism that's probably more likely to just exponentially expand it's efforts in arrogant-criminality until it doesn't even have the strength to be criminally-arrogant any more.
gilbertwham at July 26th, 2013 19:21 — #11
Douglas Adams recommended a well-aimed half brick, or a colour TV to the head.
gilbertwham at July 26th, 2013 19:28 — #12
Fuck's sake, I'm criminally arrogant. But I'm just a lowly peon, and can't really fuck anything up. A little more probity ought to be enforced on those who can.
miasm at July 26th, 2013 19:44 — #13
I don't disagree but I feel that the sheer number of changes of the kind that can actually be made right now, that would be required to be changed before anyone could even begin to perceive new possibilities, would be so overwhelming and impossible to administer as to be impossible.
It's like trying to repair an exploding and destroyed railway line as over-populated, flaming carriages hurtle in either direction.
There aren't many 'wins' left.
ygret at July 28th, 2013 06:05 — #14
Getting the money out of politics is a good start. If that is done we can begin to address the other issues. I just don't see revolution as the answer -- they all too frequently put in place people who are worse than before, and does anyone think such a thing is even possible in the US?
doctorow at July 30th, 2013 13:18 — #15
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.