Now here's some Brit. law we could really use!

Post #23,072 by Ashton 1/3/02 9:42:14 PM Reply	Now here's some Brit. law we could really use! [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/23540.html\|Disqualify the incompetent from.. doing it again (anytime soon)] What think? How many heaped dead bodies [Enron] would it take to get a Congresscritter [Enron] to phone over and ask for a Xerox? (We know we're not smart enough [Enron] to make up a new one, without help) A.
Post #23,074 by imric 1/3/02 10:15:37 PM Reply	I dunno, Ash... ..."If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" should be illegal? Or should investors simply be spared the hardship of research? grin Or - should it be illegal to fail badly? chuckle I mean, really - if denied business, won't these 'disqualified' guys just head into POLITICS? We have enough trouble with the crop of politicians we have now... Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #23,131 by hnick 1/4/02 12:18:40 PM Reply	It could use a better description of the law... I'm unconvinced that we want a body so egregiously self-serving, wasteful, lazy, ignorant, and inefficient as our Congress to set the standards for private sector company executives. Pass laws defining fraud, sure, but to allow Congress-critters to screen executives for suitability is absurd. They'd have a pricelist posted on their office doors. That's a scary thought... -Hugh
Post #23,181 by Ashton 1/4/02 8:42:19 PM Reply	The idea remains good.. but then there are humans. Devil being ever in the details: "Same bad practices" was mentioned. Since the species lacks a fairwitness, there'd have to be some tedious lists of what exactly the phrase (legally) means - don't know how the Brits handled that 'detail', but after all, it's their base-laws which spawned our'n. Why proscribe their "try.. and try.. again"? Simple: if others' $,\ufffd are involved, as in a public company (here) then oversight is not optional. (I don't know if one could or should protect VCs from themselves, except re blatant fraud). Have we no concept that, a pattern of a certain level of demonstrated irresponsibility constitutes grounds for disqualification for further forays in like manner ? It's just how you generate the legalese to implement this idea. Difficult - not unthinkable. No? Ashton Guess I'd best see what the Brit. laws says - especially about the subtle differences between premeditated fraud and terminal dumbth.

Welcome to IWETHEY!