6 ms·

It is not correct to ascribe the blame for this issue on a social divide between the public and the establishment/aristocrats/elites/etc. Many of those culpabl

It is not correct to ascribe the blame for this issue on a social divide between the public and the establishment/aristocrats/elites/etc. Many of those culpable are pretty ordinary solicitors and technology contractors and not, eg, peers of the realm.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
If/when the accountability starts to become inevitable, that gives them lots of bus-fodder, then. One thing that I have learned (and, no one else seems to have learned), is that Accountability begins and ends at the top. It doesn't matter if it was a "rogue employee." The top head is Responsible. That's (ostensibly) why they get paid the big bucks (or so I'm told, but never shown).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- h0h0h0h0111 2y ago
  So are you suggesting that every time an employee commits a crime, CEOs should go to jail alongside them? Every time a politician commits an offence the president/prime minister should go to prison? Every time a pupil breaks the law, the principal of the school should go to prison? I'd suggest the reason 'no on else seems to have learned' it is because it's a ridiculous and impractical idea. Should CEOs (etc) be punished if they knowingly aid and abet crime and/or cover it up? Sure, I think most people are on board with that.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    Executives are not punished even when they knowingly and purposefully perpetuate a crime, just see Boeing.
  - YawningAngel 2y ago
    That's exactly how this works in regulated industries. At UK banks there is criminal liability for senior management for institutional failures. Concretely in this case, if you are bringing a prosecution and you fail to uphold the rights of the defendant, yes I absolutely think you should face criminal liability for that.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    > So are you suggesting that every time an employee commits a crime, CEOs should go to jail alongside them? Pretty much, yeah. Happens in the military (not always, of course, but more common). The argument I always hear, justifying the enormous pay differential, between the CEO and their staff, is that the CEO is ultimately responsible for everything. In practice, this almost is never the case.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      The main reason for CEO pay is that's what it costs to hire a CEO.
      - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
        As determined by Boards filled with other CEOs. I'm pretty sure that SE salaries would be much higher if the only people allowed to determine their salaries were their peers.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Are they filled with other CEOs? I thought boards were filled with different people concerned with different topics. Where do you see that they're filled with other CEOs?
        triceratops 2y ago
        https://theyrule.net/ https://theyrule.net/ is a good visualizer of boards of public companies, and the titles of the directors.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Just as a quick first check, of the three most influential/connected directors listed on the front page: 2 are ex-CEOs, and the third is a mixture, including having been Obama's ambassador to the EU. How did you see how many are CEOs out of the total?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    You're exaggerating this, but there certainly used to be concepts of ministerial and executive responsibility, even for things which were not entirely within that person's knowledge or control. Ministers used to resign voluntarily. "Cabinet collective responsibility" used to be a thing. As recently as the Major government and the first term of Blair. These days senior Tories greet the idea of responsibility with a shrug. That's how we got the Truss disaster, and why they're on course for electoral wipeout.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Used to resign voluntarily? They still do, part of why the Conservative government has been so ineffective is that their ministers are constantly resigning or being fired, either due to disagreements with government policy or for some over-the-top honour related reason (e.g. they were accused of being mean to a civil servant). There are ministerial positions where they've had as many ministers in as many years!
georgesimon 2y ago
Indeed, and from the other side, there may not have been any progress at all without the support of Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom.
n4r9 2y ago
Arguably this is (yet another) failure of the outsourcing of public services to the lowest bidder.
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> Many of those culpable are pretty ordinary You misattribute The whole point of this coverup was to benefit the elites or cover up their failings. We have a dodgy contract, acceptance of a faulty system, and desire to cover up its failings because that would lead to ruined careers at the C level. Misallocation of funds would be investigated, we would have to figure out where did millions of dollars actually disappear to, etc. The middle classes involved, solicitors, etc. are culpable in the sense that they serviced the machine and enabled it, but they not the beneficiaries, they are just cog in the machine. If a specific person would refuse, another would soon take his place. So the real blame lies with those who were comfortable giving outright criminal orders.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

If/when the accountability starts to become inevitable, that gives them lots of bus-fodder, then. One thing that I have learned (and, no one else seems to have learned), is that Accountability begins and ends at the top. It doesn't matter if it was a "rogue employee." The top head is Responsible. That's (ostensibly) why they get paid the big bucks (or so I'm told, but never shown).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
h0h0h0h0111 2y ago
So are you suggesting that every time an employee commits a crime, CEOs should go to jail alongside them? Every time a politician commits an offence the president/prime minister should go to prison? Every time a pupil breaks the law, the principal of the school should go to prison? I'd suggest the reason 'no on else seems to have learned' it is because it's a ridiculous and impractical idea. Should CEOs (etc) be punished if they knowingly aid and abet crime and/or cover it up? Sure, I think most people are on board with that.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  Executives are not punished even when they knowingly and purposefully perpetuate a crime, just see Boeing.
- YawningAngel 2y ago
  That's exactly how this works in regulated industries. At UK banks there is criminal liability for senior management for institutional failures. Concretely in this case, if you are bringing a prosecution and you fail to uphold the rights of the defendant, yes I absolutely think you should face criminal liability for that.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  > So are you suggesting that every time an employee commits a crime, CEOs should go to jail alongside them? Pretty much, yeah. Happens in the military (not always, of course, but more common). The argument I always hear, justifying the enormous pay differential, between the CEO and their staff, is that the CEO is ultimately responsible for everything. In practice, this almost is never the case.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    The main reason for CEO pay is that's what it costs to hire a CEO.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      As determined by Boards filled with other CEOs. I'm pretty sure that SE salaries would be much higher if the only people allowed to determine their salaries were their peers.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Are they filled with other CEOs? I thought boards were filled with different people concerned with different topics. Where do you see that they're filled with other CEOs?
        triceratops 2y ago
        https://theyrule.net/ https://theyrule.net/ is a good visualizer of boards of public companies, and the titles of the directors.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Just as a quick first check, of the three most influential/connected directors listed on the front page: 2 are ex-CEOs, and the third is a mixture, including having been Obama's ambassador to the EU. How did you see how many are CEOs out of the total?
- pjc50 2y ago
  You're exaggerating this, but there certainly used to be concepts of ministerial and executive responsibility, even for things which were not entirely within that person's knowledge or control. Ministers used to resign voluntarily. "Cabinet collective responsibility" used to be a thing. As recently as the Major government and the first term of Blair. These days senior Tories greet the idea of responsibility with a shrug. That's how we got the Truss disaster, and why they're on course for electoral wipeout.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Used to resign voluntarily? They still do, part of why the Conservative government has been so ineffective is that their ministers are constantly resigning or being fired, either due to disagreements with government policy or for some over-the-top honour related reason (e.g. they were accused of being mean to a civil servant). There are ministerial positions where they've had as many ministers in as many years!

georgesimon 2y ago

Indeed, and from the other side, there may not have been any progress at all without the support of Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom.

n4r9 2y ago

Arguably this is (yet another) failure of the outsourcing of public services to the lowest bidder.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

> Many of those culpable are pretty ordinary You misattribute The whole point of this coverup was to benefit the elites or cover up their failings. We have a dodgy contract, acceptance of a faulty system, and desire to cover up its failings because that would lead to ruined careers at the C level. Misallocation of funds would be investigated, we would have to figure out where did millions of dollars actually disappear to, etc. The middle classes involved, solicitors, etc. are culpable in the sense that they serviced the machine and enabled it, but they not the beneficiaries, they are just cog in the machine. If a specific person would refuse, another would soon take his place. So the real blame lies with those who were comfortable giving outright criminal orders.