Corporate evil

[blandy]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

It can't save them from there repercussions, but it can have a big influence on the "being found responsible" bit. I'm sure there's much that can be done in a creative sense to ensure that the core business remains unaffected. 

I think it can, Scott. Because aircraft have crashed, crash investigators will find the cause of the crash. IF that cause is in part or in full down to Boeing's design, or failings, then there's no get out. None.

Where I might agree to an extent is that (assuming they were) to be found negligent or at fault, they might get a more lenient penalty than if it were (say) an Airbus aircraft desing ..etc..

But responsibility won't be fudged - it can't be, because it has to be fixed, whatever went wrong. There may be long appeals and lawyers and all that, but they will not avoid being found responsible, if they are responsible. And from the information I've seen and heard, it looks like they may well be.

[OutByEaster?]

41 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think it can, Scott. Because aircraft have crashed, crash investigators will find the cause of the crash. IF that cause is in part or in full down to Boeing's design, or failings, then there's no get out. None.

Where I might agree to an extent is that (assuming they were) to be found negligent or at fault, they might get a more lenient penalty than if it were (say) an Airbus aircraft desing ..etc..

But responsibility won't be fudged - it can't be, because it has to be fixed, whatever went wrong. There may be long appeals and lawyers and all that, but they will not avoid being found responsible, if they are responsible. And from the information I've seen and heard, it looks like they may well be.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that (because it's right  ) - but I think there's a level here of blur between poacher and gamekeeper - if we're looking at legislation that was written in the US, there's a very strong likelihood that someone that works for Boeing will have been involved in writing that legislation - in establishing the law and its scope. Someone within Boeing will have been involved in writing the legislation that will ultimately decide what the punishments for responsibility are, and the ability of the legal system to effectively apply them.

The US government is its corporate structure - the most powerful people in the US are lobbyists - and the work they do is the most powerful on the planet in describing and defining things like this. If Boeing are found responsible, which seems likely, there's a chance that the law will allow them to limit their responsibility and a much larger chance that the punishments that come with that responsibility will be at a level which Boeing finds appropriate. 

If you go back to Dupont and their PFOA settlement, they paid out $670m for giving over 3,300 Americans cancer and brith deformities and for putting a harmful, toxic chemical into the bloodstream of just about every human being on the planet. (to win the claim, lawyers for the paintiffs had to use blood samples taken from Korean war soldiers in the 50's in order to find a sample that didn't contain it). That settlement is dwarfed by the $16bn profit they made on the products they knowingly produced and sold that created PFOA's. 

$670m sounds like a massive punishment - and it is - but the process was one of DuPont and the US legal system agreeing a figure that DuPont could live with within a framework of law and legislation that the US government and Dupont had agreed over the previous decades. 

For Boeing there are a number of hurdles to be crossed - firstly responsibility, any limitation placed on investigation either overtly through regulation or covertly through political pressures, there's then a layer of corporate culpability, a Boeing plane might contain elements not produced by Boeing, or training that is contracted outside influences, Boeing will be able to use all of that - and then, beyond that, there's the level at which responsibility means punishments that have any real effectiveness.

I don't doubt that Boeing potentially face punishments, but they'll be at levels that Boeing is comfortable with and that the system in place to deal with these issues of negligence are fully informed on and limited to.

 

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

there's a very strong likelihood that someone that works for Boeing will have been involved in writing that legislation - in establishing the law and its scope. Someone within Boeing will have been involved in writing the legislation that will ultimately decide what the punishments for responsibility are, and the ability of the legal system to effectively apply them.

All the other stuff I've written on this is from a point of (at least some) knowledge, from working in the aviation sector for a long time. This next bit, less so.

Anyway, I think the thrust of the bit quoted is also wrong. There's a few reasons why. Firstly, obviously, the tragedies occurred outside the US. Families or others could sue in US courts, or in their own nations courts. Anything outside the US won't be subject/according to US law.

Secondly, damages aside, investigation into the causes of the crashes will I'm sure involve Boeing's data and records etc. and will involve the FAA. In the event that Boeing were to be found "guilty" of misconduct/negligence/etc. that led to loss of life, then the penalties wouldn't actually be related specifically to aviation, but to general corporate liability law and so on. I'd be less sure Boeing wrote, or influenced that area than perhaps you are. Boeing is as you (I think) said looked after by big brother US Gov't like no other company in the USA. Yet I'm still pretty sure that (as with road vehicle safety, for example) their law is pretty strict/stern on the type of failings which lead to multiple deaths. I dunno if DuPont is an exception - the point you make there is a good one.

Corporate manslaughter, individuals failing to discharge their legal duty, that sort of thing tends to be treated severely, regardless of "favouritism", IMO.

A final thing is looking at other US companies that have done bad things - from patent infringements to more serious acts, often penalties have seemed to me to be extremely high, just in terms of the numbers.

But on this you could be right. We'll see.

[VILLAMARV]

Quote

Too poor to play: children in social housing blocked from communal playground

In a move reminiscent of the ‘poor doors’ scandal, a London developer has segregated play areas for richer and poorer residents

At least one multimillion-pound housing development in London is segregating the children of less well-off tenants from those of wealthier homebuyers by blocking them from some communal play areas. Guardian Cities has discovered that developer Henley Homes has blocked social housing residents from using shared play spaces at its Baylis Old School complex on Lollard Street, south London. The development was required to include a mix of “affordable” and social rental units in order to gain planning permission. Henley marketed the award-winning 149-home development, which was built in 2016 on the site of a former secondary school, as inclusive and family-friendly. It said the “common areas are there for the use of all the residents”.

But the designs were altered after planning permission was granted to block the social housing tenants from accessing the communal play areas. Salvatore Rea, who lives in a rented affordable flat with his wife, Daniella, and their three children, says the residents of the complex are very aware of the disparity. “My children are friends with all the other children on this development – but when it is summer they can’t join them.

“Children shouldn’t know who owns and who is renting.”

The situation is reminiscent of the ongoing “poor doors” controversy, where social housing residents are forced to use side doors to apartment blocks that also contain private flats. The Rea family lives in Wren Mews, the social housing building of the complex, which forms one side of a playground square. The other three sides of the square are buildings dedicated to private owners, renters and shared ownership accommodation. Those from the three private forms of housing can access the playground, but children from Wren Mews cannot. The original planning documents, which were approved by Lambeth Council and went through public consultation, showed gates from all the flats giving access to the main play area. But before residents moved in, the designs were altered – with permission from Lambeth – to transform the gates from Wren Mews into impassable hedges.

“As soon as we moved in, the caretaker said to us, ‘That’s private: those people bought their houses, so they get to play there,’” Daniella Rea said.

Henley Homes and Lambeth Council say the duty to provide play space for under-fives has been discharged, because there is a small strip of toddler play equipment specifically for the social housing children. Ironically, the site is a former state school, where Rea was herself a pupil. In the main courtyard, the developers preserved the original school signs, which exhort residents and passersby to ‘Put learning first’. Beneath the signs, two wrought-iron statues of children strike playful poses. Rea claims Guinness Homes, the management company now running Wren Mews, originally said her children would be able to use the play spaces.

“We were told we could use all the play areas. This was important to me because my son is in a wheelchair and he has a special bike that I wanted to let him use.” She says the bike and wheelchair are too heavy to carry to the nearest park.

The original planning application does not mention separate access for residents of different tenure. The play strategy for the development says: “There is a network of courtyards and open spaces … which will provide attractive areas for informal play. This will emphasise the sense of community within the scheme stressing that the common areas are there for the use of all the residents.”

It adds: “It is important to encourage children to cycle, use roller skates and skateboard.” No space is available to the residents of Wren Mews for these activities.

Dinah Bornat, an architect and expert on child-friendly design who advises planners, local authorities and the mayor of London, called the development “segregation” and said she has raised it with senior planners at the Greater London Authority.

“Everyone I have told, at the highest level, has been absolutely horrified to hear that our planning system is not robust enough to stop this happening,” she said.

“To see hedges where plans showed gates, to see a segregated small play area for the social housing residents, while their children directly overlook a much nicer play area is appalling.”

She says it is an abuse of the planning process if developers make such fundamental alterations after the plans have been through a public consultation.

“They are allowed to make minor changes,” she noted. “But what they have done here is altered the layout to block access to social housing residents. We have to ask: was this a cynical move?”

Lambeth Council insisted the situation was unavoidable, and said it bears no responsibility for the site now that it has been built. The council said the small gated strip of play equipment near the back of the social housing unit discharges the duty of providing play space for children under five years old. In a statement, a spokesperson for the council said: “The plans or conditions do not control which residents have access to specific areas.”

Henley Homes, the developer, said it was only responsible for the private and shared ownership buildings, and that it had handed the freehold of the Wren Mews social housing block to Guinness Homes, a social housing company. It said this is a standard practice when there are different tenures on one development.

“This deal structure was agreed with Guinness right at the start, as a method for them to best manage their freehold for the benefit of residents. Wren Mews is a separate, albeit closely neighbouring block with its own access,” said Suze Jones, a spokesperson for Henley Homes.

Guinness Homes said it has no control over anything but the social housing block, and could not control access to the private areas of the development. Warwick Estates, the company that manages the private part of the development, strongly defended its decision to keep the social housing residents out of the shared spaces.

“Although, as you state, the block overlooks the swing area, the residents have no access to it. This is for [a] very good reason – being that [they] do not contribute towards the service charges,” said Emma Blaney of Warwick Estates. “This is in no way discriminatory but fair and reasonable.”

The Green party leader and GLA member Sian Berry said plans for another site in development in Camden, north London, also feature segregated play areas.

“The worst thing was they were both rooftop play areas and the better-off kids were looking down on the poorer children with no way to reach them,” she said of the plans.

Berry said she has asked the mayor to ban segregated play areas in new developments. Louise Whitely, a private owner from the Lilian Baylis development, says she wants the gates put back in so her children can play with their friends.

“We bought a flat here because it was marketed as family-friendly and there were photos of children playing all over the site,” she said. “But now our children’s friends look down from their windows and can’t come and join us. We want them to be given back the access that was shown in the original plans.”

The existence of “poor doors”, where less wealthy residents of developments are required to use separate entrances, caused widespread controversy when it was uncovered five years ago. The practice continues. Meanwhile last year affordable housing residents in Royal Wharf, a development in east London, complained about segregation after being told they could not share the use of a swimming pool and gym on the site because they did not pay the relevant service charge.

Guardian

[blandy]

2 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

Henley Homes and Lambeth Council

Henley's brother Sherlock was a smack-head and Lambeth Council opens the batting for Barbados 2nd XI.  Who put them in charge of buildings n'that? No wonder it's all gone wrong.

[villakram]

Purdue Pharma signs off on the first of many settlements regarding Oxycontin with state Oklahoma - $270m.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-opioids-litigation-idUSKCN1R70CH

"Purdue Pharma LP and members of the wealthy Sackler family that own the OxyContin maker have reached a $270 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit by the state of Oklahoma accusing the company of helping fuel an opioid abuse epidemic, a person familiar with the matter said on Tuesday."

[Tegis]

@limpid

So, the new EU-legislation. How will that affect VT and yourself when users post links, texts and highlights? Looks nightmare-ish at first glance.

edit: Just saw that links are exempted from this. Reproduction of text is not (i think)

Edited March 26, 2019 by Tegis

[limpid]

2 hours ago, Tegis said:

@limpid

So, the new EU-legislation. How will that affect VT and yourself when users post links, texts and highlights? Looks nightmare-ish at first glance.

edit: Just saw that links are exempted from this. Reproduction of text is not (i think)

No idea. what new legislation and what does it have to do with this thread?

[Xann]

Quote

 

The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report.

Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global warming, the report said.

Increasingly they are using social media to successfully push their agenda to weaken and oppose any meaningful legislation to tackle global warming.

In the run-up to the US midterm elections last year $2m was spent on targeted Facebook and Instagram ads by global oil giants and their industry bodies, promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production, according to the report published on Friday by InfluenceMap.

Separately, BP donated $13m to a campaign, also supported by Chevron, that successfully stopped a carbon tax in Washington state – $1m of which was spent on social media ads, the research shows.

Edward Collins, the report’s author, analysed corporate spending on lobbying, briefing and advertising, and assessed what proportion was dedicated to climate issues.

He said: “Oil majors’ climate branding sounds increasingly hollow and their credibility is on the line. They publicly support climate action while lobbying against binding policy. They advocate low-carbon solutions but such investments are dwarfed by spending on expanding their fossil fuel business.”

 

Grauniad

[blandy]

51 minutes ago, Xann said:

The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change

The Pope is Catholic. Bears poo in the woods. It should get more attention, but it won't.

[Xann]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

The Pope is Catholic. Bears poo in the woods. It should get more attention, but it won't.

Those that take notice can avoid lining their pockets and point out their failings when they stray onto our social media platforms spouting bollocks.

[Tegis]

3 hours ago, limpid said:

No idea. what new legislation and what does it have to do with this thread?

Absolutely nothing, I just made it all up

[limpid]

1 minute ago, Tegis said:

Absolutely nothing, I just made it all up

Made what up? Am I missing a joke?

[Tegis]

Just now, limpid said:

Made what up? Am I missing a joke?

I meant the copyright laws which critics say could change the internet have been voted in by the European Parliament. I just wondered if it might affect you and the site?

Might be the wrong thread, move it if you like

 

[limpid]

1 minute ago, Tegis said:

I meant the copyright laws which critics say could change the internet have been voted in by the European Parliament. I just wondered if it might affect you and the site?

Might be the wrong thread, move it if you like

I've not had time to look - is this the link tax? In it's originally proposed form it mean s the end of VT - at least for EU readers. I doubt it'll become legislation in that form though. I don't think it's related to "corporate evil"; more to do with stupid legislators.

I'm too busy to be editing threads - there's this Brexit thing going on. Always start a new thread if there isn't a suitable one. It's much easier for mods to merge threads than split them.

[Pelle]

12 hours ago, limpid said:

I've not had time to look - is this the link tax? In it's originally proposed form it mean s the end of VT - at least for EU readers. I doubt it'll become legislation in that form though. I don't think it's related to "corporate evil"; more to do with stupid legislators.

I'm too busy to be editing threads - there's this Brexit thing going on. Always start a new thread if there isn't a suitable one. It's much easier for mods to merge threads than split them.

IIRC there is a thread about this "article 13" and 11 and 12 somewhere. I vaguely remember reading it one of the first days I came back here.

[Xann]

Quote

 

Monsanto found liable for California man's cancer and ordered to pay $80m in damages

Agrochemical corporation found responsible for Roundup weedkiller’s health risks in ‘bellwether’ federal trial

The second phase of the trial focused on claims that Monsanto quietly worked to control research and sway regulators about Roundup’s safety.

A federal jury ruled that Monsanto was liable for a California man’s cancer and ordered the Roundup manufacturer to pay $80m in damages.

The ruling on Wednesday, which holds the company responsible for the cancer risks of its popular weedkiller, is the first of its kind in US federal court and a major blow to Monsanto and its parent company, Bayer. A representative said Bayer would appeal.

In a verdict during an earlier phase of the trial, the jury in San Francisco unanimously ruled that the herbicide was a “substantial factor” in causing the cancer of Edwin Hardeman.

Hardeman, a 70-year-old Santa Rosa man, was the first person to challenge Monsanto’s herbicide in a federal trial, alleging that his exposure to the glyphosate weedkiller caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a cancer that affects the immune system.

The case has attracted international attention and raised new questions about the potential health hazards of Roundup. It also challenged the conduct of Monsanto, now owned by the German pharmaceutical company Bayer. The corporation is facing more than 9,000 similar lawsuits across the US that allege Roundup has caused cancer.

The jury ruled that Roundup’s design was “defective”, that the product lacked sufficient cancer warnings, and that Monsanto was negligent in its failure to warn Hardeman of the NHL risk. The jurors ordered the company to pay Hardeman $75m in punitive damages, $200,000 for past economic losses and $5.6m in non-economic losses.

“As demonstrated throughout trial, since Roundup’s inception over 40 years ago, Monsanto refuses to act responsibly,” Hardeman’s lawyers said in a statement. “It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.”

 

Guardian

[limpid]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

Guardian

I think it was SGU or SBM that covered this a few weeks ago. The level of scientific knowledge demonstrated in court was shocking.

You can't do science in a court. Regardless of which side of the GMO non-debate you are on, this set all kinds of stupid precedences.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, limpid said:

You can't do science in a court. Regardless of which side of the GMO non-debate you are on, this set all kinds of stupid precedences.

Not commenting on this particlar case, but the science is/should be done outside of court, but experts on the science (scientists) should be perfectly able to give or present scientific evidence to a court.

[Xann]

27 minutes ago, limpid said:

... this set all kinds of stupid precedences.

Like ditching the Theory Of Evolution and denying climate change.

Silver lining that corporate science with warped objectives gets taken down too.