Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Other News
If the company I worked for lied in court, resulting in me being jailed – the starting point for compensation I’d want would be £1 million, and would quite reasonably reach £10 million or more.
You can bet your life that these people will be offered derisory levels of compensation.
Following this scandal, what we need is a law similar to corporate manslaughter – whereby those at the top of an organisation are jailed for the criminal behaviour of their subordinates. There should be no excuse for not knowing that the company in which you control is engaged in criminal activity.
https:/
You can bet your life that these people will be offered derisory levels of compensation.
Following this scandal, what we need is a law similar to corporate manslaughter – whereby those at the top of an organisation are jailed for the criminal behaviour of their subordinates. There should be no excuse for not knowing that the company in which you control is engaged in criminal activity.
https:/
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It has been an abysmal abuse of loyal workers, the damage is immeasurable.
https:/
https:/
chrissakes - coroporate manslaughter is against - guess what? - a corporation
more bad news - perjury is not a tort ( it is a crime and you cant base a claim for moolah on lying on oath in a court by itself)
further
criminal behaviour is usually personal ( to the person that is!) and not father, son or wholly ghost and dead people
other than that - there are some good ideas for starters on this thread
more bad news - perjury is not a tort ( it is a crime and you cant base a claim for moolah on lying on oath in a court by itself)
further
criminal behaviour is usually personal ( to the person that is!) and not father, son or wholly ghost and dead people
other than that - there are some good ideas for starters on this thread
the judgement is here
god again
https:/
judgement no 6 - oh god
first sentence - this is a judgement in the long running dispute ....oh
god again
https:/
judgement no 6 - oh god
first sentence - this is a judgement in the long running dispute ....oh
// There should be no excuse for not knowing that the company in which you control is engaged in criminal activity.//
very fine sentiments
but.....
if an employee steals from his employer (you) you arent liable
If a gas engineer steals from a punter - does the gas co pay? does anyone know the answer to that - mind freeze on that one
if a gas man uses his car as a getaway in a robbery, we know the answer to that one ( no )
very fine sentiments
but.....
if an employee steals from his employer (you) you arent liable
If a gas engineer steals from a punter - does the gas co pay? does anyone know the answer to that - mind freeze on that one
if a gas man uses his car as a getaway in a robbery, we know the answer to that one ( no )
//Following this scandal, what we need is a law similar to corporate manslaughter…//
Anything similar to corporate manslaughter will be a waste of time. That offence is rarely prosecuted and successful prosecutions are even rarer than that. It is fourteen years since the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act was introduced and I believe there have been fewer than 30 convictions.
//…whereby those at the top of an organisation are jailed for the criminal behaviour of their subordinates.//
As a point of clarification, the Act does not make those at the top of an organisation responsible for the criminal behaviour of their subordinates. As Peter points out, it is the organisation which is prosecuted and which suffers the penalty on conviction, not individuals (the clue is in the name). An organisation must have failed in its duty of care to the victim for the offence to be made out. As far as individual responsibility goes, the CPS charging guidance says this:
“Section 18 of the Act provides that an individual cannot be guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence of Corporate Manslaughter, nor can they be guilty of encouraging or assisting crime contrary to Section 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 by reference to an offence of Corporate Manslaughter. If an individual is to be prosecuted for their personal failings the appropriate charge is gross negligence manslaughter contrary to common law.”
Something down the route of perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice (maximum sentence Life imprisonment) is the way to go with this. There were individuals in the PO who knew that the prosecutions were based on falsehoods and even if they did not provide perjured evidence themselves, their involvement must have been such that they sought to deny justice to those convicted.
Anything similar to corporate manslaughter will be a waste of time. That offence is rarely prosecuted and successful prosecutions are even rarer than that. It is fourteen years since the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act was introduced and I believe there have been fewer than 30 convictions.
//…whereby those at the top of an organisation are jailed for the criminal behaviour of their subordinates.//
As a point of clarification, the Act does not make those at the top of an organisation responsible for the criminal behaviour of their subordinates. As Peter points out, it is the organisation which is prosecuted and which suffers the penalty on conviction, not individuals (the clue is in the name). An organisation must have failed in its duty of care to the victim for the offence to be made out. As far as individual responsibility goes, the CPS charging guidance says this:
“Section 18 of the Act provides that an individual cannot be guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence of Corporate Manslaughter, nor can they be guilty of encouraging or assisting crime contrary to Section 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 by reference to an offence of Corporate Manslaughter. If an individual is to be prosecuted for their personal failings the appropriate charge is gross negligence manslaughter contrary to common law.”
Something down the route of perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice (maximum sentence Life imprisonment) is the way to go with this. There were individuals in the PO who knew that the prosecutions were based on falsehoods and even if they did not provide perjured evidence themselves, their involvement must have been such that they sought to deny justice to those convicted.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
Stuck On The Last 3 Clues Of Crossword
Crosswords11 mins ago
Computers18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News25 mins ago
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |