Spot the difference competition

[New Judge]

What are the differences between events 1 and 2, which saw large fines being imposed upon private companies, and events 3 and 4 which have not seen (and are most unliklely ever to see) any consequencies (apart, that is, from the resignation of Paul Gray, boss of HMRC, who moved into a similarly paid government job a few days later)?

1. Insurance firm Norwich Union has been fined �1.26m by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) after customers lost �3.3m through identity fraud. Slack security checks at its call centre let fraudsters impersonate customers and cash in their policies.

2. The financial regulator has fined Nationwide Building Society almost �1m following the theft of a laptop from an employee's home last year. The computer contained confidential customer information and may have put millions at risk of identity theft.

3. Around 15,000 Standard Life customers could be at risk of fraud after their personal details were lost by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). The data was on a CD sent from the Revenue office in Newcastle to the company's headquarters in Edinburgh.

4. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he "profoundly regrets" the loss by HMRC of 25 million child benefit records. These included the names, addresses, dates of birth, National Insurance numbers and bank and building society details of Child Benefit Claimants.

[Quinlad]

Do you understand the difference between fining a profit-making company and a public body? You must know that the public body is funded by us, the public, and that subtracting money from HMRC would leave a shortfall that would make them less equipped to collect taxes - meaning that our public services suffer.

What punishment would you like to see?

[Gromit]

The first two were the results of negligence by private businesses in the process of selling goods or services at a profit. The high fines reflect their high profits.

The last two were the results of negligence by public servants in the (poor) execution of their duties on behalf of the government. The lack of fine is because the government were performing its duties as a statutory requirement and no profit (other than taxes collected) were accrued.

[jake-the-peg]

As I recall 4) cost the Chairman of HMRC his job

Did the chairman of Nationwide or Norwich Union loose their position?

I'm guessing not!

As for Paul Grey's "new job" his contract meant that he would be paid regardless so it was decided to use him rather than pay him for nothing:

"When he resigned, his period of notice meant he would be paid until the end of the year. As a result, he could receive payment for no work, or receive payment for doing some work. It was thought to be better in the public interest that he did some work. There is no additional cost. He will leave the payroll on 31 December."

So the diffrence is that in the public sector personal responsibility was taken but not in the private sector.

Do I win a prize?

[MrsT]

The public sector are a notorious shower id sh1t, unfortunatlely fines are pointless because they would just be moving public funds from one pot to another.

Perhaps a sound thrashing of a senior civil servant in the town squares throughout the land would make us all feel a little better!

[jake-the-peg]

Fining public companies is little better.

How many times do we hear of companies being shut down and their directors restarting minus their debts under a new name?

[Panic Button]

Nice idea Mrs. T

How about Brown and Blair?

[kwicky]

The fine of Nationwide should never have been made. They are not a limited company and any profit is ploughed back to its members who are the savers or mortgage payers. The �1 million fine therefore was a steal by a government department.

[Gromit]

I think I have spotted the difference between 1 and 4.

1 �3.3M actually stolen because of lax security.

4. No monies stolen. A theoretical possibility that fraud could occur, however the data is thought to be lost within the system. There is no evidence it has been stolen.

[Oneeyedvic]

Dear God - you can't spot the difference and you are a judge?

[Gromit]

Just because New Judge is a user name is not evidence enough that the questioner is a Judge. I have never supposed Oneeyedvic that you are monoculus.

[New Judge]

Thanks for all your inputs to a lively debate!

Of course, I knew the answer before I posed the question. That is, that governments are masters of the �do as I say, not as I do� routine and are immune from the consequences of their mistakes (unless they affect foreigners, criminals or foreign criminals).

Of course, Mrs T it is quite right. It is pointless fining taxpayer funded bodies. That, though, does not stop the EU fining its member states (i.e. the taxpayer) for perceived transgressions of some of its ridiculous regulations, nor did it prevent the Metropolitan Police (i.e. the taxpayer) recently being fined for Health and Safety irregularities. There are many other examples too numerous to mention.

I don�t really know the solution to this problem, but raised the question because I believe it demonstrates that hypocrisy of the highest order exists within government. (And before you leap to Gordon�s defence, I don�t mean just this one, but governments of all persuasions).

[Oneeyedvic]

Gromit - I believe that New Judge is a judge by the advice he gives in the Law Section. If he is not a judge then I'll be very surprised.