Rampant Corruption - A Reality?

[Huguenot]

Nobody will deny the whiff of petty corruption in the wheedling of expenses claims, or self-aggrandising geriatrics claiming consultancy fees to speak on certain issues in the House of Lords (although their impact is questionable).

Nobody will deny the need to extinguish it immediately.

However, is characterising this as 'rampant' losing our sense of proportion?

* We have an effective democracy where our leadership is ultimately responsible to the electorate.

* The payment of bribes to secure public expenditure or activity is still the exception not the norm, and exterminated in the glare of public exposure.

* We have no unscrupulous despots turning national assets into personal wealth.

* We have had no careless exploitation of our natural resources to ravage our environment.

If we lose our sense of proportional reaction will this leave us powerless to act when actually are faced with a genuine crisis? If we go on strike for larger kettles in our tube station canteen, will this leave us bereft of support when a real safety issue comes along?

Are we crying wolf too quickly?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Some of us might dispute the 90+% of MPs quoted by Steve on another thread as well

I still don't see it as a major issue - it was wrong and needed changing, but it was the end result of years of denying MPs the wage rises they should have had - Net result to the taxpayer is minimal I'm guessing

Some people have a NEED to be offended though. Never mind analysis, taking into account all the facts, reason and balance - just look through a magnifying glass at a grubby result and get upset about that

I'm seeing more reportage of the growing anger amongst voters as if to say they are right. I want to know who is getting angry at the voters after years of selfish behaviour. But no, like a spoilt child, "we" the taxpayer/voter get to gurgle when we get what we want and scream blue murder when we don't

[Tony.London Suburbs]

"Rampant Corruption" ??

Absolute nonsense.

The deafening outcry by the "Great" British Public, most of whom, if, say, 30 years or over, would get their snouts as far in the trough of greed that they could get away, that they would make the average current British Politician seem like a moral combination of Mother Theresa and Mary Whitehouse.

Most of the "Great" British Public are just envious that they haven't had the opportunity to get a piece of the action themselves.

n.b. I realise that the one exception to this sweeping generalisation in Britain are the majority of EDF readers and contributors, who, of course, would never dream of indulging in such nefarious and unsavoury activities.

[Jeremy]

China, India, Russia, Brazil... almost any African country... corruption is rampant in these places. MPs second home expenses are petty in comparison.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Try living in Chad, El Salvador, Southern Sudan, Paraquay or even Mexico and try to avoid an association with corruption on everystrata of society.

We are not even Isthmian League, by comparison.

[HAL9000]

Let me summarise this thread so far just to make sure I?ve got the gist of it:

Corruption always takes place in secret.

Successful participants don't get caught.

A low exposure rate is evidence of low corruption.

Is that right or is it a circular argument?

Oh yes, almost forgot: One should be completely convinced by the argument that the British couldn?t possibly do corruption better than their counterparts in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Chad, El Salvador, Southern Sudan, Paraquay, Mexico and most African countries?

Or have I missed something?

[nashoi]

Top of the economic ladder - yes

Bottom of the ladder - yes

Most rungs in between - not so much

Some interesting stuff here though if you have the time.The Corner House

I've no idea how accurate the following figures are but I did smile when I heard them some years ago, apparently 50% of aid to the developing world is stolen by corrupt officials, and 50% of the World Bank aid budget goes to consultants.

[SteveT]

An amazing link nashoi.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

nashoi Wrote:

I've no idea how accurate the following figures are but I did smile when I heard them some years ago, apparently 50% of aid to the developing world is stolen by corrupt officials, and 50% of the World Bank aid budget goes to consultants.

Shows how wrong one can be.

I've presumed its nearer 90% for Decades, in both cases.

I wonder if someone can ask Bob Mugabe if he really needs an eleventh Palace in Zim.

[mockney piers]

" apparently 50% of aid to the developing world is stolen by corrupt officials, and 50% of the World Bank aid budget goes to consultants."

while paying too much for MBA clone consultants is one of my pet peeves, the above statement is somewhat disingenuous. It implies an equivelancy between theft and profligacy which is rather over egging the moral outrage pudding isn't it?

[Huguenot]

I don't know where you're coming from HAL9000.

If you're referring to my own views, I can assure you that corruption I've encountered is neither particularly secret, nor do successful practitioners always avoid prosecution.

As for low exposure equating limited practice, hardly. Even so, what do you mean by exposure?

You seem to be setting up straw men?

Unless you can cite some of this massive corruption in the UK - perhaps putting Tony Blair in line with Bobert Mugabe and stealing half the country's GDP - I just don't have any 'control' sample apart from the ravings of paranoiacs.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know where you're coming from HAL9000.

It?s self-evident, surely? I simplified the argument (developed within the thread up to that point) in order to check whether its reasoning was circular?

> If you're referring to my own views,

No. I think what happened is that someone took what I said in another thread out of its original context and posted it as the title of a new thread - this one.

> I can assure you that corruption I've encountered is neither particularly secret,

If you're not a participant and you know about it, it isn?t secret, is it?

> nor do successful practitioners always avoid prosecution.

In which case they aren't successful practitioners, are they?

> As for low exposure equating limited practice, hardly.

That?s my point - we agree ? where?s the problem?

> Even so, what do you mean by exposure?

Entering the public domain - as defined in the original thread, you?ll recall?

> You seem to be setting up straw men?

?A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.?

Where have I misrepresented anything you have said?

> Unless you can cite some of this massive

> corruption in the UK - perhaps putting Tony Blair

> in line with Bobert Mugabe and stealing half the

> country's GDP -

Now that is a straw man argument ? I haven?t claimed anything of the sort.

Just to clarify, I said ?rampant? which, in its original context, is usually taken to mean: extending unchecked or unrestrained and frequently or widely.

> I just don't have any 'control' sample

> apart from the ravings of paranoiacs.

Those who find themselves clutching at straws often resort to Ad hominem. However, I?ll just take this as an admission that you are arguing from ignorance :)

[Huguenot]

You've resorted to calling me ignorant? How your friends must admire you. Your Ad Hominem comment pasted merrily over your own ruddy countenance methinks.

I notice you've also resorted to fisking, and I'm intrigued to see that (compared with my ignorance) you consider that the highest form of debate.

Your position is ridiculous by your own source: "a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false"

You insist on the existence of corruption in the UK precisely because you have no evidence for it. You cite court cases and 'D' notices as if to impress the little ones in the playground (and then we discover 'D' notices are no more binding than a girly squeal). Once more, no evidence.

If you have evidence of 'rampant' corruption ('extending unchecked or unrestrained and frequently or widely'), then really, where is it? Or are you just an old man with foil on his head going "woo woo" round the campfire?

HAL9000, I'm sure you're a nice bloke. Really mate, take on someone more your own size.

[macroban]

> and then we discover 'D' notices are no more binding than a girly squeal

This is the silliest comment in Huguenot's latest posting. The point is that DA-Notices are "advisory" and a warning in the sense that the weight of the State might be brought to bear down on you if you do not follow the advice.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You've resorted to calling me ignorant?

No. An ?argument from ignorance? is a type of logical fallacy, as I?m sure you know. By the way, did you not see the smiley?

> How your friends must admire you. Your Ad Hominem comment

> pasted merrily over your own ruddy countenance methinks.

Oh, I see. That wasn?t a misunderstanding; you were just trying to set up another straw man.

> I notice you've also resorted to fisking,

Your posts are sitting ducks ? I can?t resist.

> and I'm intrigued to see that (compared with my ignorance)

> you consider that the highest form of debate.

May I remind you: you started this thread. The onus is on you to prove your point.

My original comment was covered by a caveat: I can?t talk about it because of ongoing legal issues. It was always a matter of believe it or not. Under the circumstances it is unreasonable to expect me to debate the matter further.

> Your position is ridiculous by your own source: "a

> logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a

> premise is true only because it has not been

> proven false"

Talking of fallacies ? is this an Appeal to Ridicule?

You?ve chosen to prove that something doesn?t exist because you don?t know anything about it ? go ahead, I?m not stopping you.

> You insist on the existence of corruption in the

> UK precisely because you have no evidence for it.

On the contrary: nashoi has posted a link (above) to a site where a huge government corruption scandal involving the then Prime Minister (and her son) is documented in great detail. Those files demonstrate how different agencies act together to cover up inconvenient cases ? exactly what I was alluding to.

A Google search reveals the scale and scope of UK corruption already in the public domain.

No. Evidence of corruption is ubiquitous ? the question is: what proportion of all corruption enters the public domain? I said/say ? based on personal experience mind, not wishful thinking or pure guesswork - only the tip of the iceberg.

You say ... to be honest, I?m not sure what you are trying to say? Corruption doesn?t exist? Only corruption that you know about exists? What is your point?

> You cite court cases and 'D' notices as if to

> impress the little ones in the playground (and

> then we discover 'D' notices are no more binding

> than a girly squeal). Once more, no evidence.

I imagine you would feel differently if you were arrested and interrogated for several days incommunicado under the PoTA and then dragged through endless trials and court actions over the next twenty years with no end in sight?

> If you have evidence of 'rampant' corruption

> ('extending unchecked or unrestrained and

> frequently or widely'), then really, where is it?

Are you asking me to post evidence of corruption that hasn't been detected yet? How would you know it was genuine? Are you willing to underwrite Admin?s libel risks and mine?

See - that?s why I can?t take you seriously.

> Or are you just an old man with foil on his head

> going "woo woo" round the campfire?

My tin foil hat looks rather cool, I?ll have you know. Woo woo!

> HAL9000, I'm sure you're a nice bloke.

Don?t jump to that assumption ? I might not be.

> Really mate, take on someone more your own size.

I?m sorry, had I realised you were an intellectual midget, I would have been gentler.

(Come on - you set yourself up for that one! :) )

End note:

For me, this forum is a source of entertainment, amusement and fun. I don?t take anything too seriously and always intend my posts to be viewed in a light hearted and friendly way. But I realise that plain text doesn?t always come across that way, especially in the midst of a heated debate. If I?ve inadvertently upset or insulted anyone ? I?m sorry ? that was never my intention.

[Huguenot]

I think if you want to refer my back to my OP you'll have to do that properly.

I certainly didn't deny that corruption doesn't exist because I can't see it, and consequently have no obligation to prove it. Your straw man once again.

I asserted that 'rampant corruption' was hyperbole in both a real and comparative sense. It leaves you bereft of language to express yourself when faced with real corruption.

I wonder whether we differ in our definition of corruption? Yours would appear to describe the non disclosure of sensitive information as a 'cover-up', teamwork as 'collusion' and consultancy as 'bribery'. It's the language of the tabloids.

The example of the Ian Tomlinson case demonstrates how unaccommodating our structures and society are to corruption.

Your argument is quasi-religious: "I have decided that God/Corruption is omnipresent based on circumstantial evidence and wilful misinterpretation of the available information. This is a conviction based on faith. Unless you can prove he doesn't exist, he does. QED".

[????]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> China, India, Russia, Brazil... almost any African

> country... corruption is rampant in these places.

> MPs second home expenses are petty in comparison.

er...I'd add, say Italy, France, Spain and even Germany....but that offends those that believe in the 'great european project', which I suspect is the majority hereabouts

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Your argument is quasi-religious: "I have

> decided that God/Corruption is omnipresent

> based on circumstantial evidence and wilful

> misinterpretation of the available

> information. This is a conviction based on

> faith. Unless you can prove he doesn't exist,

> he does. QED".

Who are you quoting here? If that represents your understanding of my position then ... let's just say it's not even wrong.

I'm wondering whether this storm-in-a-teacup is down to my use of the word "rampant" or, rather, your aversion to it? "Rampant corruption" is a common phrase. Perhaps "pervasive" or "ubiquitous" may have been more acceptable? Matthew Norman, writing in the Independent, uses the latter in this article: Corruption in Britain? Surely not ..., for example.

I agree that corruption should be defined properly. Also, there are many sources of statistics on the web: this international Corruption Perceptions Index places Britain at No. 16 as of 2008. It is interesting that the Index has been criticised; because corruption is wilfully hidden, it is impossible to measure directly; instead proxies for corruption are used, which neatly illustrates the problem inherent in any attempt to quantify undetected corruption.

[mockney piers]

God you are an arse sometimes quids. What on earth has acknowledgement of higher corruption in those countries have to do with the 'great European project'? Italy is horribly corrupt (dark heart of Italy is a recommended read btw), Spain endemically nepotistic, France has awful political corruption, Germany I'm afraid I know little about in this arena.

That's just how they operate irrespective of European cooperation or integration. If you're talking about Brussels, commission's wasteful and profligate nature, how our MPs have nothing on MEPs they are also fair points.

I think you overestimate your power to offend us poor little sensitive middle classes sometimes you know. It's petty compared to the rife Kleptocracies mentioned above though. Our MPs' scandal was really quite petty really barring one or two it was a storm in a teacup. Al Yamamah single handedly threw us about 6 places down the corruption index, those arethe sorts of things we have to watch out for.

[Huguenot]

Rampant, pervasive and ubiquitous all communicate exactly the same spirit. The tragedy is that you bandy around quips like 'not even wrong' without recognising through the fog of your self-regarding wit that you're looking in the mirror.

In that respect your admiration for the terminology of bepimpled nerds is poorly placed. Like Fisking, it smacks of the intellectual rigour of "arf arf, he said 'period'"

It is your argument that is 'not even wrong' in your puerile waft of clever clever internet debater 'references'.'

You've delivered no support for your argument that corruption is "pervasive and ubiquitous", instead referencing some misty 'inner knowledge' that smacks of public schoolboys breathily squeaking "and I'm a spy, and I've been in the SAS, and the government's after me, and I'm a bit like Robin Hood, and I have special knowledge, and I'm the only one who can save you, and I could tell you but then I'd have to shoot you..."

Typically, you've failed to define 'corruption', but if it's a reflection that other people will make decisions that impact on your life without gaining your input (and may well advantage themselves) then it's hardly a surprise is it? Other people are not your mum and dad.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot: you are beginning to sound hysterical. Your last post is a mixture of Ad hominem augmented with bizarre Strawman-esque analogies, which, frankly, look like the ravings of a paranoid nutcase.

The "not even wrong" comment refers to the "quasi-religious" characterisation of MY argument. It does not refer to your argument at all. Your repeated miscomprehensions have stifled the possibility of a rational debate, I'm afraid.

The level of undetected corruption is always a matter of perception or opinion, which, in my case, happens to be based on personal experience. One can accept or reject such an opinion but to insist on quantitative evidence is simply moronic.

In case you haven't figured it out yet; the level of undetected corruption is one of those issues where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Recall my original comment: We must remain vigilant.

Your last post contains no probative content whatsoever: the debate is over.

[Huguenot]

For sure, you may claim the last word.

I gently refer to my original request, furnish your argument with evidence of ubiquity or fall foul of hyperbole. We must remain vigilant.;-)

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I gently refer to my original request, furnish

> your argument with evidence of ubiquity or fall

> foul of hyperbole. We must remain vigilant.;-)

I don't know who is the bigger fool, you for persisting with this or me for responding? Well, since you ask so nicely...

In the previous thread, I elaborated briefly on why the true scale of corruption in the UK is so difficult to quantify - in my opinion. English corruption law is full of loopholes: few allegations or investigations ever lead to prosecutions. Those loopholes did not arise spontaneously - they were developed to minimise the exposure of corruption, an objective aided by a wide array of gagging facilities. It is only very recently that the authorities have been forced (by foreign pressure) to review the UK's arcane corruption laws - as the following two articles explain.

OECD report attacks British failure to tackle corporate bribery and corruption

UK bribery law reform ? Targeting corporate sleaze

Given the nature of these complaints and the government's response, I think it is fair to conclude that corruption has been, and remains, widespread within the UK. Describing it as ubiquitous is not hyperbole, in my opinion. I have no doubt that you will disagree with that. Is it possible to prove one opinion or the other conclusively? I don?t think so ? but I?m open to suggestions.

Perhaps we should put it to a vote?

I've included this link for general interest.

Police Corruption in England and Wales: An assessment of current evidence See 6. Conclusions and recommendations; page 51.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Is it not rather ironic that the UK Government has come down hard on Turks & Caicos?

[macroban]

The clamp down on Turks & Caicos does not surprise me.

It's a matter of "leakage" to not our kind of people.

Now Huguenot's ex-cathedra pontifications have been demolished by HAL9000 I'd like to reflect on how examples of this pervasive corruption might exist in our local community.