0
    0

    Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by dom16.

    @John Clark

    A little earlier today I heard a guy from the New York Times discussing that paper's 'Daily', which is a daily 20 minute podcast , 5 days a week.  Each podcast focuses on one particular 'newspoint', at home or abroad, in a kind of in-depth look , talking to people involved.

    =======================

    the New York Times podcast is brilliant and well worth a listen. 

    They have a very successful subscription model which I think grew substantially when Trump started baiting them. 

    dom16 Also Commented

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Scotsman have decided to move to a subscription model. Five articles a week or pay £8 a month. Looks to have started 12 June  

    I will give the subscription a miss. But how long have the Scotsman got left? 


    Accountability via Transparency.
    What it takes to run a successful football league club – luck!

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/11/sustainable-efl-club-stevenage-chairman-luck-selling-fans-football

     

     

     


    Accountability via Transparency.

    There was an item on the News this morning about the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee and its investigation into whether ,in the area of sexual harassment in the workplace, the use of 'non-disclosure agreements ' (NDAs) was being abused. 

    That sounds like a good idea that might usefully be further expanded.

    For example,wouldn't it be nice if ,say, one's suspicions about a questionable NDA signed by, say, governance bodies in the area of sport , dodgy businessmen , and Administrators/Liquidators, were to be removed (or confirmed) by open examination of its contents (and how the 'agreement' may have been arrived at) by , say, a Committee of the Scottish Parliament?

    ===========================

    NDAs are a legitimate means of protecting a business. For example sales person is head hunted by another business. They can’t just take their contacts book and company processes with them. 

    That they have been used for other purposes is down to m’learned friends seeing an opportunity and thoroughly battering it. 

    A great example of a business who got caught out by this is the SRU. They have history in using NDAs for allegedly less than stellar motives. When they tired to exit a senior leader using their previously tried and tested method and they got badly burned. 

    https://theoffsideline.com/keith-russell-wins-case/


    Recent Comments by dom16

    Bad Money?

    Ex Ludo5th July 2019 at 09:19

    Companies House is a familiar source of information for many on here. The quote below is taken from an article in today’s Guardian newspaper (online). It casts doubt on the checking systems of Companies House.

    readers of Private Eye will be very familiar with this. Companies House is about as useful as a chocolate teapot with the veracity of company information 


    Bad Money?

    John Clark3rd July 2019 at 11:36

     

    8

     

    0

     

    Rate This

     

     

    easyJambo 3rd July 2019 at 10:14

    '..A floating charge security has been lodged with Companies House in favour of the lender Bydand Sports LLC.'

    This surely points up how utterly useless our  newshounds are at anything other than merely reporting what clubs say!

    John I think the last 7 years have ampley demonstrated the inability of the back pages journos to read financial docs. Nor are they able to walk to the business desk to get them explained. 

    To be fair the state of some newspapers they might have no one else to talk too so just rely on the given press release. 


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Well you wait years then they all come at once!

    McGregors appeal refused 

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/47226931


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    There is an old adage in rugby that it’s only a penalty (which is given for foul play or breaking the laws) IF the ref sees it. And given the large pileups in rugby it’s understandable if refs miss the odd one or two. Indeed for the game to function they have to ignore certain offences otherwise they would spend all their time whistling. 

    So why mention this? The players know fine well they are pushing it. Back in the day the opposition would make sure the offender was “put right “ by the judicious use of a boot/studs to said player. 

    I would contend that football players know they can push it also. Indeed they will seek to test where the ref will act. If a ref is being particularly lenient then the envelope to push increases. 

    Add in incorrect application of the laws and poor governance makes for a very poor situation 


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Thanks Tris. Pleased suitable order has been re-established.