 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
From the Guidance - para 20 By way of illustration, in order to proceed with a case under section 1 based on an allegation that hospitality was intended as a bribe, the prosecution would need to show that the hospitality was intended to induce conduct that amounts to a breach of an expectation that a person will act in good faith, impartially, or in accordance with a position of trust. This would be judged by what a reasonable person in the UK thought. So, for example, an invitation to foreign clients to attend a Six Nations match at Twickenham as part of a public relations exercise designed to cement good relations or enhance knowledge in the organisation’s field is extremely unlikely to engage section 1 as there is unlikely to be evidence of an intention to induce improper performance of a relevant function.
Of course the last sentence could be replaced by the following: So for example, an invitation to undertake a ski inspection trip, as strongly encouraged by guidelines issued by the Department of Education and in many cases required by the Local Authority as well as being a public relations exercise by the Tour Operator designed to cement good relations or enhance knowledge of the Tour operator's operations is extremely unlikely to engage section 1 as there is unlikely to be evidence of an intention to induce improper performance of a relevant function. I rather doubt that TOs will be stopping inspection trips as a result of the Bribery Act |
The guidelines for school trips here have just been revised by the government, and the '@rse covering' excuse of H&S risk assessment 'must visit resort and ski for week' has just been blown out of the water. School ski tour organisers provide full details for a risk assessment (some do not even offer inspection trips) and some (the experts in this) actually do the risk assessmnet on behalf of the schools, unless of course it is CR T/A SE whereby a free trip for a week is deemed the best way of doing a risk assessment.
If you juxtapose what CR T/A SE offers by way of inducement against what other more honest companies offer, then imho any reasonable view of this would be likely to fall foul of this new bribery act. Edit - and as proferred by Achilles from businesszone.co.uk -
| Quote: |
| But if you are in any doubt, just think 'Is this reasonable and proportionate?' That is the golden rule." |
Stephen, in all honesty, I do not think you can ignore the 'elephant in the room' and condone a free weeks skiing as an inspection trip simply because you do not want to tarnish the reputation of a few teachers who perhaps have over stepped the mark and allowed themselves to be swayed by this and other benefits offered by SE.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 7-07-11 9:02; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
rayscoops, bored with life? Nothing else to do? I've found Facebook quite an eye-opener - and a lot of snowheads are chatting on that. Mumsnet might be another outlet for your frustration (they've shown themselves to be ethically pure, too, by pulling advertising from Sky).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
achilles, just tidying up a few loose ends based upon on-topic changes in the relevant laws and governmental guidelines in this matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rayscoops, how very thorough of you - though I don't realise you were now snowheads Head of Legal Department.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
achilles, perhaps it is you that is now snowheads Head of Legal Department, you seem to be moderating this subject as a semi-official snowHeads 'damage limitation' moderator ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
achilles, Just admit the fact that on this subject both S101 and yourself are wrong, taking what the legal expert in this field has to say of the act, and he is far more qualified than a few forum armchair lawyers, i think you will find what SE / CR offered was a bribe.
You have had your argument blown out of the water, suck it up and live with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leedsunited where did that quote 'however if you where to take people abroad to see a sporting event and also include wives accommodation and all food and drinks just as a contract is about to be awarded' etc from the lawyer come from ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops, On the day that the new law was being introduced, a lawyer with 30 years experience in anti bribery was interviewed on BBC Breakfast News and those where his exact words. shame it is not still on iPlayer.
EDIT - He also mentioned that the value of the event that one is attending is not the base line, ie the market rate for tickets to Wimbledon or the Olympics are going to be high just by the demand of the event, the driving force for scrutiny is the intent and timing in which they are offered and accepted.
So a member of school staff is sat with £50K of other peoples money and is looking to book a ski trip, along pops SR / CE and says "come for a free weeks skiing with us, nothing to pay and you can bring the wife and kids all inclusive, we will even throw in some heli skiing, member goes with family on free trip and then on return places order with SE / CR.
Under the lawyers guidance when interviewed by the BBC this would be very much open to scrutiny as failing the bribery law, his words not mine.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Thu 7-07-11 10:12; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
leedsunited, um, I don't have a legal argument that I feel strongly about on this one - though doubtless if you trawl through the thread, you'll find something I've forgotten. The problem with this thread and the SE one is that they have become bogged down with tedious repetitive argument with nothiing or precious little to add. They detract from the overall merits of each thread. One drops in to see if there is something new (for one thing, I am quite interested in the Bribery Act) only to be disapointed that tedious posters are still making tedious posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops, Having libelled myself you do not seem to learn - and if I were pitchski I would be asking some very serious questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
The guidelines for school trips here have just been revised by the government, and the '@rse covering' excuse of H&S risk assessment 'must visit resort and ski for week' has just been blown out of the water. School ski tour organisers provide full details for a risk assessment (some do not even offer inspection trips) and some (the experts in this) actually do the risk assessmnet on behalf of the schools, unless of course it is CR T/A SE whereby a free trip for a week is deemed the best way of doing a risk assessment.
If you juxtapose what CR T/A SE offers by way of inducement against what other more honest companies offer, then imho any reasonable view of this would be likely to fall foul of this new bribery act. Edit - and as proferred by Achilles from businesszone.co.uk -
|
You seem to working under the false assumption that it is the new Bribery Act and the revised guidelines which are of relevance to the CR case - when they are of no relevance whatsover - the judgement then would be based upon what prevailed at the time. So are you nopw admitting that the existing guidelines did justify inspection trips at the time (presumably they were in the water before?). I n that case that makes two things you can apologise for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101,Interesting article and IMHO confirms that what SE / CR was offering is open to scrutiny, the closing para from http://thebriberyact.com/2011/06/27/hospitality-wimbledon-finals-bribery-arrests/ is also very good.
"We also expect that corporate hospitality will be a powerful piece of evidence. On a cold and wet February morning in Southwark Crown Court pictures of laughing guests, clinking chilled champagne glasses in the sun before their paid for helicopter flight over Niagara Falls, will be an image that will stick in the minds of the jurors as they consider their verdict…"
Feel free to substitute "in the sun" with on the piste and "Niagra Falls" with to the best off piste skiing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Stephen101, you are a wag 
leedsunited, I would be worried if I was one of the people in this photo enjoying the preview week - still on the SE website here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
leedsunited, rayscoops, If you really think it is open to scrutiny then could I suggest that you have the courage of your convictions and do something about it rather than boring everyone rigid with the same arguments and unsupported accusations. On the other hand you could perhaps go back to your nice little troll cave and entertain each other for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Stephen101, this is a geeky ski forum on the edge of the cyberspace world - it is not real, |
What , its not real!!! nearly 10 pages of back and forth , and its not going to change a thing !!! who would have thought that.
Real, would be spending about £20 on a credit report, getting a home address and going round to extract any missing money that was owed.
I imagine CR is aware of this thread as well as the SE thread and must smile every time he reads them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
lightningdan,
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Stephen101,
| Quote: |
On the other hand you could perhaps go back to your nice little troll cave and entertain each other for a change.
|
Oh i find it much more interesting and fun to sit here in cyberspace laughing at the thought of you with steam coming out of your hard drive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
leedsunited, I would be worried if I was one of the people in this photo enjoying the preview week - still on the SE website here
|
The picture of the teachers having a good old sing song around the table for some strange reason reminds me of the nun playing the guitar on the Airplane movie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
get over yourself !
