An interesting definition

Corruption is the abuse of public interest and the undermining of public confidence in the integrity of rules, systems and institutions that promote the public interest.

This definition is broader than those offered by the likes of Transparency International, who suggest it is “the misuse of entrusted power for private gain” or the World Bank’s “the abuse of public office for private gain”. This is important. These very narrow definitions are themselves usually interpreted quite narrowly. What we need is a much broader perspective on this issue and in the context of May 12 this is vital: unless the definitions used are appropriate the outcomes of that conference will be inadequate.

I confess I am not confident that the appropriate definition will be used, and would suggest that if it is not that will, in itself, be a form of corruption.

Is making shit up about deals, Vodafone and HMRC something which will undermine public confidence in the integrity of rules, systems and institutions that promote the public interest and are, therefore, TJN and Ritchie corrupt?

Discuss

9 thoughts on “An interesting definition”

  1. Each pronunciamento that falls from the great man’s lips must be taken in isolation.

    To consider his oeuvre of pronunciamenti as a whole is a wilful (and probably neo-liberal) misconstruction of each valuable pericope.

  2. The “public interest” here is of course what Murphy decides is in the public interest, “public confidence” is measured by his confidence and whether systems and institutes are promoting the public interest is decided by him, thus he alone can decide whether an action is undermining that public confidence.

  3. Since Murph and soapy Jo seem to be on a mission to undermine confidence in HMRC, they obviously fall into this definition of corruption. The same goes for Hodge the Dodge and the Guardian.

  4. @AndrewC

    Yes, the image of him defending himself, capitulating and saying sorry, then writing the cheque, an image to savour. Given this, a few others should have a go.

    Interestingly, the accounts for TRUK for that year make no mention of this, or allocation for it, just saying “TRUK had a good year” so whatever the payment was, it came out of his pocket. The damages probably not much, the costs would be interesting to know!

  5. Right, someone makes up a definition of ‘corruption’, and if it isn’t used then that is also ‘corruption’?

    Noel:

    “The damages probably not much, the costs would be interesting to know!”

    The article says “substantial” damages. What is that legal-speak for? Five figures?

  6. Ritchie, the man who lies and cheats in a campaign that pretends to be about tax but is actually purely motivated by a particularly virulent antisemitic hatred, is corrupt? Whodathunkit?

  7. …purely motivated by a particularly virulent antisemitic…

    Dave – to quote R Reagan: “now there you go again…”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *