Gosh, this is an interesting argument

Ritchie:

This is an extraordinary statement. How odd it is that the CEO of an multinational corporation – the sort of organisation that says it only thinks globally – uses the pretext of local law to claim……

And he claims that it is local law – and not the law of the state where his company is quoted – and not the power of international regulation – that must apply.

Umm, he seems to be saying that a multi-national company should deliberately break the local laws in a/some of the countries in which it operates.

If, for example, Angola passes a law stating that an oil company must not reveal what it is paying in royalties for oil (which, if memeory serves, they did at one point) then BP and any other company operating in Angola must break that law.

There is something of a problem with this attitude. With a company operating in the UK Richard insists that both the letter of the law and its spirit must be obeyed by all. For this is the law of the land.

Apparently laws passed by darkies elsewhere don\’t have the same power, are not subject to the same test of sovereignty, as those written by us pink types.

There are countries where women may not drive. This is of course in breach of (and quite rightly in breach of) our own laws on sex/gender discrimination. Must all UK companies now deliberately break Saudi Arabian law by insisting that their female employees there may drive?

Insert example of your choice, but he really does seem to be being colonial here. The laws around the world, whatever the independence or otherwise of other nations, should be determined in a Norfolk parsonage.

8 comments on “Gosh, this is an interesting argument

  1. Ritchie has a the Roper from “Man from All Seasons” about him. He’d cut down all laws to chase his extra taxes.

    Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
    More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

  2. I refuse to check it out and bump up his ratings.

    If the CEO of a French company said bugger your stuoid little petty laws on smoking and lights up in his London office, is he right or wrong?

    I think we have one guy here who ought to stop thinking outside the box. Or maybe he should start ‘thinking things through’, his eternal excuse in case he is spouting rubbish.

    I have a feeling he has run out of things to say and he has committed himself to a production he can’t handle.

    He’s spread himself too thin.

  3. This is consistent with his hatred for the Channel Islands where he favours the rule of quangos such as the EU and the IMF over democratically elected governments over domestic tax raising legislation. He is not hypoctitical in his approach but rather morally flawed as ever.

  4. Richard is a man not weighed down or held back by the burden of logical and consistent thought processes.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.