This area is where ethical proposals should be discussed.
The Lobby Group
- to affect public sector decisions in the UK.
The Latest From www.politics.co.uk
- Gove shrugs off academy outrage July 30, 2010
- Council tax 'vetoes' on offer July 30, 2010
- David Miliband remains Labour frontrunner July 30, 2010
- Osborne crushes MoD's Trident hopes July 30, 2010
- Scientists warn ministers of 'false economy' July 30, 2010
- Welfare reform vision unveiled July 30, 2010
- Iraq inquiry: Prescott dismisses 'tittle-tattle' intelligence July 30, 2010
- Expenses MPs lose privilege appeal July 30, 2010
- Blunt Cameron stands by Pakistan comments July 29, 2010
- Indian 'jobs mission' reaps results July 29, 2010
Other links
If you think there's still hope:
Contact your local elected officials - for free
Find out more about your MP/ MSPs/ MLAs
Stuck for words?
If you think nothing will stop things getting worse:
ArchDruid Report
Frugal Living
Land Share
CSA
If you want an alternative outlook:
The Daily Mash
The Spoof
Contact your local elected officials - for freeFind out more about your MP/ MSPs/ MLAsStuck for words?If you think nothing will stop things getting worse:
ArchDruid ReportFrugal LivingLand ShareCSAIf you want an alternative outlook:
The Daily MashThe Spoof
by CoralBloom
13 Feb 2009 at 00:54
Was it the experts who caused the problem, those who knew a little and played the marketing game, portraying themselves as experts very well when they were clearly not, experts who decided being an expert was not paying the mortgage, so joined the marketing game.
Whatever way, Nick the way ahead for all of us is complex. Bad experts will continue the mess. What we need are honest people expert at what they do. And for all part (I mean the public, not this group per se) we need to be prepared to listen to what they have to say, make the time to think about it, and then when we make our choices, live by them.
I often wonder if we are really in this mess, because it is easier, and quicker to listen to the salesman who will sell us something warm and cozy rather than the cold hard facts he knows we will not stomach.
An expert, honest builder is of value. A jack the lad, sales pitching guy who makes it sound simple is off no good to anyone. The expert one will explain he doesn’t won’t to build a house for you on the banks of a beautiful river because it floods every 2 years. So building a house there for you, no matter how much you love that part of the river is pretty dumb. Or would you be happy the jack the lad, fly by night built you the beautiful house of your dreams?
Isn’t this really at the heart of what has gone so wrong?
by CoralBloom
13 Feb 2009 at 01:22
From my points re-Globalisation:
Ethics
All management and professions should be subject to Oath prior to professional employment, similar to medics. Immoral/dishonest activities will lead to a barring from that and related professions.
by kooltidings
13 Feb 2009 at 05:14
Ethics – This always become an accute issue once money or polical parties get involved, as this can be seen as the moment independence is ‘compromised’ I like the idea of an oath though.
Could it also be argued that politician should not be ‘paid’ and have their expenses reimbused only, how realistically could this be enforced? They can make donations to political parties capped and transparent why not politician salaries/expenses.
The point that needs addressing also is dual interest. All interests should be declared and published, especially directorships look at all the saga with the Lords.
As the backlash of all the greed and actions over the last few months expands, there may be an initial need/requirement for better morals, at least for a bit before we fall back in our old way (I fear)
As long as some bank remain in the control of the State, (and other large organisations, civil service etc) then it could be written into the control of the board, eg specific targets that are measured, expecting commitment from the board member, say paying/releasing bonuses after 5 year or something like this
by OldNick666
13 Feb 2009 at 15:05
Ethics – A weasel word. Full of philosophical argument.
Maybe I want a simple life. One that many people can understand. Morals – much simpler.
Maybe I can begin to understand Honesty and Truth. Maybe other people can understand as well.
Below an excerpt from an article on the Quakers. How do you feel reading this.
# speaking the truth, even when it is difficult
# paying people fair wages for their work
# giving one’s employer the right amount of labour for one’s pay
# saying difficult things with grace and tact
# receiving difficult sayings gracefully
# guarding one’s reputation for honesty, fairness, and fidelity
# taking responsibility for one’s actions and their results
# fulfilling one’s commitments
# taking care of items entrusted to one
# being open to the ideas of others but not being too easily swayed by them
# confronting lapses in integrity in oneself and in others
# giving credit to others for their contributions
# assessing people and situations fairly and accurately
# avoiding spending beyond one’s means through the use of credit
by CoralBloom
13 Feb 2009 at 15:32
I choose the word Ethics rather than morals since religious people do tend to argue about morals and then we get into a debate about which god is the real one (if any).
#speaking the truth, even when it is difficult
This the difficult one!
I’ve resigned two jobs ‘cos I knew speaking the truth would have me fired. When the boss asks, and you know him well enough to know better than answer truthfully, you can either squirm, dodge the issue, go for it, or leave without the screaming match.
I think one is missing at least for us Brits. We do not accept compliments with grace!
I’ve yet to meet a business man who lived up to these ideals. Do you know any?
by OldNick666
13 Feb 2009 at 16:05
CoralBloom
Hasn’t anyone told you? There is only one real god. Money.
Yes. “Ethics” does allow more scope for discussion.
by CoralBloom
13 Feb 2009 at 16:47
And I thought it was the UK weather pattern!
by Rahere
25 May 2009 at 11:52
Even the Quakers have their problems – Cadbury was once a Quaker company, but baby, you’ve seen what it’s like now, thirty years down the track.
by Jericoa
25 May 2009 at 12:39
Ethics to me simply means ‘value system’ and is relative to the particular times.
It can never be pinned down and never should be, Humans have the unique? capability to positively engage with ethics which is why a jury of 12 people drawn from diverse walks of life (no matter how complex a case) is the only way to maintain justice in society in my view.
That principle has been eroded away by an increasingly complicated legal language leading to claims that many cases are ‘too complicfated’ for trial by jury. most isssues are actually pretty simply at their core, they are only made complicated because it is in someones interests to do so.
We are hard wired for greed and it requires constant vigilance to keep it in balance, even the quakers were done in by a hady mix of chocolate and cash it seems.
I cam see the temptation there i have to admit.
Jericoa
by Rahere
25 May 2009 at 12:52
There’s a fundamental lack of probity in everything we have to deal with. From Customer Services to Call Centres to Charters to Ombudsmen to MPs, you get no answers, just diversions. Rahere started as a chaser, and finds all these Laputian Flappers a total waste of time. Away with them, the only thing they do is isolate the productive from the market.
by Rahere
25 May 2009 at 13:40
For your awareness, the Quaker meeting house in Birmingham produced three heads of families – Lloyds, Cadbury, and Lucas – none of whom have improved for the better of late.
But that is history, we seek the future.
Some management principles:
You get 2 out of 3, cheap, pretty and fast (a pretty girl who’s fast don’t come cheap). We can’t afford expensive now, so it’s a trade-off between pretty and fast. We don’t have time to waste, so forget pretty. Which means we must be prepared to get brutal. An odd suggestion in an ethics debate, but someone has to fly the kite.
A first step: get the courts working on time. They must cut their coats according to their cloth, and clear the backlog by the end of the year: that means no more Term Calendars, no more deferments, each case can have so much time and no longer (depending on the load to clear and the 220 days available, working all weekends and onwards), divided 40% on each side and 20% for judgement. These Bleak House proceedings must stop, innocent men lie in prison on remand while judges take their ease. Any judge who fails, even once, demote him to a Peter Principal level he can handle. Away with the 195 9-5 working days they allow themselves, when in a crisis a manager signs up to work the hours necessary and it’s a crisis there now. If they don’t like it, either ship out or staff up, without increasing the spend: make the buildings work for a living, 24/24 365.25/365.25. Yes to night courts to clear the remand cases – who wouldn’t want to do all possible to regain his freedom, over 50% of relmand prisoners are innocent? – yes to stringent curfews while awaiting prison, yes to amplified punishments for non-cooperation, ie just as sentences can be cut for good behaviour, so they can be increased for bad behaviour. That means defaulting on a suspended or probationary sentence must receive more than the balance not served, Rahere suggests restarting from zero with the period on conditional liberty added to the top. That means a rapist on bail gets double the sentence if he offends while on bail, in the least of matters.
I said it would be brutal and brutal it will have to be if we ever hope to come out of this.
The reason for this is that we need a hammer to deal with companies. There is a case for a National ID system, and it’s this: every man should be able to check the honesty of the people he’s dealing with. A man has a right to a presumption of innocence ONLY WHEN HE IS INNOCENT, let’s see the criminal and civil records up front. A Director of a Company which goes bust is responsible for the fact, it should be visible his Record (and to stop Directors jumping ship, that should also apply to all Directors who resigned up to five years earlier). Whether a ticket for speeding or RBS, a trail of scam companies or nothing at all, it should be seen.
Then, and only then, can we turn to the legislature, for we need a tool to hold them accountable with.
by jack
08 Jul 2009 at 02:45
Talking of ethics and the BBC . they have few when it comes to the BBC america justin webb site. Posters who advocate genocide and torture. and give specific plans to terrorists are allowed to carry on posting while those that dare oppose them are banned for life and other people who make similar comments also get banned for life.
The BBC will print a lie and then remove posts and even ban posters for daring to counter blatent lies.
The BBC america site will ban people on hearsay and innuendo for life without any appeal or reasoned debate discussion or even listening to the person banned. Just as americans did in gitmo. russians in the gulag (though thank god being banned from the BBC is not really a big deal) it is a strange stance for the BBC to take.
And the bit at the bottom of the page about being sure you have your facts right.
That doesn’t apply to the BBC america blog apparently.They have allowed libellous comments about michelle Obama getting given money for nothing when she took paid possitions.
A reliculas farce of moderation there has led to near a on revolt.